From narten at us.ibm.com Mon Jan 6 20:33:46 2014 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:33:46 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources In-Reply-To: <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> References: <528E7C93.909@inex.ie> <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> Message-ID: <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Hi John. I've recently been asked some questions about IPv6 allocations. So I went back and reviewed the current ARIN NRPM. John Curran writes: > Since we do have a service region, we require requesters to be operating in > the ARINregion and to announce the least-specific in the region, but nothing > precludes announcement of same or more specifics from outside the region. > FWIW, I couldn't find any mention of announcements in the NRPM, other than in the context of multihoming. So, where exactly does the above requirement about announcements come from? Also, if one is required to announce the full prefix within ARIN, doesn't that imply one can't get an allocation for private use where there is no intention to announce publically? Finally, there does not seem to be much clarity in the term "operating in the ARIN region". Consider a global entity that effectively operates in multiple, if not all regions. Let's assume their primary or legal home is within the ARIN region. Is that enough? Apparently not entirely. I've been told that when providing justification for obtaining IPv6 address space, ARIN only counts usage within the ARIN region. That implies multi-nationals are expected to go to multiple RIRs, and get fragmented address space, something I thought RIR addressing policies were supposed to discourage. Do I understand ARIN policies correctly? And do other RIRs do the same? I.e., do the collective RIR policies really say multi-nationals need to go to each RIR to get the address space they need, rather than going to one, and getting a single aggregate? Thomas From randy at psg.com Mon Jan 6 20:52:12 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:52:12 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources In-Reply-To: <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <528E7C93.909@inex.ie> <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: > Hi John. > > I've recently been asked some questions about IPv6 allocations. So I > went back and reviewed the current ARIN NRPM. > > John Curran writes: > > > Since we do have a service region, we require requesters to be operating in > > the ARINregion and to announce the least-specific in the region, but nothing > > precludes announcement of same or more specifics from outside the region. > > > > FWIW, I couldn't find any mention of announcements in the NRPM, other > than in the context of multihoming. So, where exactly does the above > requirement about announcements come from? > > Also, if one is required to announce the full prefix within ARIN, > doesn't that imply one can't get an allocation for private use where > there is no intention to announce publically? > > Finally, there does not seem to be much clarity in the term "operating > in the ARIN region". Consider a global entity that effectively > operates in multiple, if not all regions. Let's assume their primary > or legal home is within the ARIN region. Is that enough? Apparently > not entirely. I've been told that when providing justification for > obtaining IPv6 address space, ARIN only counts usage within the ARIN > region. That implies multi-nationals are expected to go to multiple > RIRs, and get fragmented address space, something I thought RIR > addressing policies were supposed to discourage. > > Do I understand ARIN policies correctly? > > And do other RIRs do the same? I.e., do the collective RIR policies > really say multi-nationals need to go to each RIR to get the address > space they need, rather than going to one, and getting a single > aggregate? > > Thomas thomas, you must be misunderstanding something. for many years, arin has said that they have nothing to do with routing. randy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 527 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jan 6 22:43:21 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 21:43:21 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources In-Reply-To: <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <528E7C93.909@inex.ie> <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <218BA0A7-C555-4BC0-84F6-18B82910F91D@arin.net> On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > Hi John. > > I've recently been asked some questions about IPv6 allocations. So I > went back and reviewed the current ARIN NRPM. > > John Curran writes: > >> Since we do have a service region, we require requesters to be operating in >> the ARIN region and to announce the least-specific in the region, but nothing >> precludes announcement of same or more specifics from outside the region. >> > > FWIW, I couldn't find any mention of announcements in the NRPM, other > than in the context of multihoming. So, where exactly does the above > requirement about announcements come from? As noted in the presentation, the current processes are result of ARIN's mission to manage address space in the region and the current lack of a clear definition in the number resource policy manual regarding how that should be interpreted with respect to out of region requestors. > Also, if one is required to announce the full prefix within ARIN, > doesn't that imply one can't get an allocation for private use where > there is no intention to announce publically? We do approve requests for private use of IPv6, as long as it is routed on private infrastructure in the region. > Finally, there does not seem to be much clarity in the term "operating > in the ARIN region". Consider a global entity that effectively > operates in multiple, if not all regions. Let's assume their primary > or legal home is within the ARIN region. Is that enough? Yes, as long as they have legal presence and intend to use the allocation in the region, it's fine; the fact that some of it may be used outside the region does not prevent allocation. > Apparently not entirely. I've been told that when providing justification for > obtaining IPv6 address space, ARIN only counts usage within the ARIN > region. That implies multi-nationals are expected to go to multiple > RIRs, and get fragmented address space, something I thought RIR > addressing policies were supposed to discourage. Correct, they can receive an IPv6 allocation, but it may be smaller than expected if they aren't going to route it all in the ARIN region. We consider global infrastructure and customers as long as a route covering the whole block originates somewhere within the ARIN region in any fashion - publicly, on an extranet, privately, etc. Note that we actually discussed many of these issues with the ARIN community as a result of the presentation you referenced, and this led to Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6 "Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors" , which was discussed at length and then abandoned. Absent more specific guidance from the community either way on these sorts of issues, we continue to operate as described above. If you are aware of anyone who has had difficulty receiving an IPv6 allocation as a result, please feel free to direct them to me. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From narten at us.ibm.com Tue Jan 7 15:21:19 2014 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 09:21:19 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources In-Reply-To: <218BA0A7-C555-4BC0-84F6-18B82910F91D@arin.net> References: <528E7C93.909@inex.ie> <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <218BA0A7-C555-4BC0-84F6-18B82910F91D@arin.net> Message-ID: <201401071421.s07ELJH9031047@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> John Curran writes: > > Also, if one is required to announce the full prefix within ARIN, > > doesn't that imply one can't get an allocation for private use where > > there is no intention to announce publically? > We do approve requests for private use of IPv6, as long as it is routed > on private infrastructure in the region. > > Finally, there does not seem to be much clarity in the term "operating > > in the ARIN region". Consider a global entity that effectively > > operates in multiple, if not all regions. Let's assume their primary > > or legal home is within the ARIN region. Is that enough? > Yes, as long as they have legal presence and intend to use the allocation > in the region, it's fine; the fact that some of it may be used outside the > region does not prevent allocation. What does "use the allocation within the region" really mean? If one addresses devices that physically reside outside of the region, but also routes to those devices from within the region, does that count? This is the key question. You say the "the fact that some of it may be used outside the region does not prevent allocation." suggests that if some of the devices are outside of the region, that is OK. But that then does mean that requestors should be able to justify space based on a combination of customers that reside "inside" and "outside" the region. My understanding is that in fact ARIN does not count (in justifications) addresses that will be used on devices outside of the region, which would seem to contradict your statement. Is it in fact that justifications can include equipment that will be located outside of ARIN's region, or is it actually that all of the addresses must be used by customers/equipment within the region? > > Apparently not entirely. I've been told that when providing justification for > > obtaining IPv6 address space, ARIN only counts usage within the ARIN > > region. That implies multi-nationals are expected to go to multiple > > RIRs, and get fragmented address space, something I thought RIR > > addressing policies were supposed to discourage. > Correct, they can receive an IPv6 allocation, but it may be smaller > than expected if they aren't going to route it all in the ARIN region. > We consider global infrastructure and customers as long as a route > covering the whole block originates somewhere within the ARIN region > in any fashion - publicly, on an extranet, privately, etc. I don't follow this. If a multi-national has customers spread all across the world, and uses a single prefix to cover them all, and uses that prefix within ARIN's region (e.g., by advertising the aggregate from within the region), is that enough to satisfy ARIN's requirement that they "route it all in the ARIN region? > Note that we actually discussed many of these issues with the ARIN > community as a result of the presentation you referenced, and this > led to Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6 "Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address > Space to Out-of-region Requestors" , > which was discussed at length and then abandoned. Absent more specific > guidance from the community either way on these sorts of issues, we > continue to operate as described above. If you are aware of anyone > who has had difficulty receiving an IPv6 allocation as a result, please > feel free to direct them to me. I am raising these questions precisely because I have been made aware of such a situation and have been asked if I can share light on what is supposed to happen in such cases. Thomas From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 15:04:27 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 14:04:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources In-Reply-To: <201401071421.s07ELJH9031047@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <528E7C93.909@inex.ie> <9D844710-2476-4A7E-A507-DB209B68547A@arin.net> <201401061933.s06JXkLK032123@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <218BA0A7-C555-4BC0-84F6-18B82910F91D@arin.net> <201401071421.s07ELJH9031047@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <642BF9B2-23F4-47D8-88EC-F744C4AA8A29@arin.net> On Jan 7, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > What does "use the allocation within the region" really mean? > > If one addresses devices that physically reside outside of the region, > but also routes to those devices from within the region, does that > count? This is the key question. Yes. > You say the "the fact that some of it may be used outside the region > does not prevent allocation." suggests that if some of the devices are > outside of the region, that is OK. But that then does mean that > requestors should be able to justify space based on a combination of > customers that reside "inside" and "outside" the region. Yes. > My understanding is that in fact ARIN does not count (in > justifications) addresses that will be used on devices outside of the > region, which would seem to contradict your statement. > > Is it in fact that justifications can include equipment that will be > located outside of ARIN's region, or is it actually that all of the > addresses must be used by customers/equipment within the region? There must be some customers/equipment in the region, but it does not need to be all of them. > I don't follow this. If a multi-national has customers spread all > across the world, and uses a single prefix to cover them all, and > uses that prefix within ARIN's region (e.g., by advertising the > aggregate from within the region), is that enough to satisfy ARIN's > requirement that they "route it all in the ARIN region? Yes. > I am raising these questions precisely because I have been made aware > of such a situation and have been asked if I can share light on what > is supposed to happen in such cases. Good to know - If you have them contact me or send me the ticket number, I can fairly quickly find out the disconnect. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From dhilario at ripe.net Wed Jan 22 10:34:01 2014 From: dhilario at ripe.net (David Hilario) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:34:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the policy proposal 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" has been implemented. The RIPE NCC can now accept transfer requests for address blocks with End User assignments. The archived proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-599 Kind regards David Hilario IP Resource Analyst RIPE NCC From bengan at resilans.se Wed Jan 22 13:37:04 2014 From: bengan at resilans.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:37:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" In-Reply-To: <52DFB9DC.2070103@resilans.se> References: <52DFB9DC.2070103@resilans.se> Message-ID: <52DFBB70.5000708@resilans.se> 2014-01-22 13:30, Bengt G?rd?n skrev: > 2014-01-22 10:34, David Hilario skrev: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> We are pleased to announce that the policy proposal 2013-05, "No >> Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" has been >> implemented. The RIPE NCC can now accept transfer requests for >> address blocks with End User assignments. >> >> The archived proposal can be found at: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 >> >> The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the >> RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-599 > > Thank you. When will we see an implementation of this in the database? > > regards, Well. That was awkward. Wrong list and wrong policy/proposal. Sorry. regards, -- Bengt G?rd?n Resilans AB From bengan at resilans.se Wed Jan 22 13:30:20 2014 From: bengan at resilans.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bengt_G=F6rd=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:30:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52DFB9DC.2070103@resilans.se> 2014-01-22 10:34, David Hilario skrev: > Dear colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that the policy proposal 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" has been implemented. The RIPE NCC can now accept transfer requests for address blocks with End User assignments. > > The archived proposal can be found at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 > > The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-599 Thank you. When will we see an implementation of this in the database? regards, -- Bengt G?rd?n Resilans AB From elvis at velea.eu Tue Jan 28 17:38:24 2014 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:38:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> References: <1384942149.9327@mobil.space.net> <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> Message-ID: <52E7DD00.1020600@velea.eu> Hi Gert, I see that the Last Call has ended on the 6th of January 2014. Have the WG Chairs reached a decision with 2013-03 ? cheers, elvis On 05/12/13 19:31, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > [..] >> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any >> comments to before 5 December 2013. > the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, > thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be > unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed > at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons > opposing it. > > Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG > chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that > all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - > this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, > but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. > > This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send > the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. > > For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or > something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is > what the chairs based their decision on. > > 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 > > > support: > Mikael Abrahamsson > Randy Bush > Daniel Stolpe > Dimitri I Sidelnikov > Andy Davidson > Sascha Luck > Jan Zorz > Bengt G?rd?n > Raluca Andreea Gogiou > Roger J?rgensen > Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Andreas Larsen > Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) > Elvis Daniel Velea > Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) > Gerry Demaret > Sebastian Wiesinger > Lu Heng > Sonderegger Olaf > Ian Johannesen > Fredrik Widell > Alexey Ivanov > Sandra Brown > Donal Cunningham > Tassos Chatzithomaoglou > Mike Burns > George Giannousopoulos > Ragnar Anfinsen > Milton L Mueller > Ronny Boesger > Dominik Bay > Lutz Donnerhacke > > support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and > some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community > Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details) > > neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): > CJ Aronson > Nick Hilliard > Hans Petter Holen > John Curran > > > opposing: > McTim > "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system > is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in > the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue > there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." > > considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis > that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the > goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, > and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be > amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, > if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which > currently does not seem to be the case). > > Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 > of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a > less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this > to be addressed as well. > > Filiz Yilmaz > would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include > "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" > > This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see > what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this > sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given > that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness > to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. > > Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for > the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change > and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point > answered, and go forward. > > Sylvain Vallerot > main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins > under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could > create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being > able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. > > considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure > inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, > a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny > addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left > anymore to give all of them what they ask for. > > David Farmer > initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion > between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the > proposal itself From sander at steffann.nl Tue Jan 28 18:40:12 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:40:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <52E7DD00.1020600@velea.eu> References: <1384942149.9327@mobil.space.net> <20131205183121.GA54642@Space.Net> <52E7DD00.1020600@velea.eu> Message-ID: <245575C6-8A06-4043-B2F9-D4221780898D@steffann.nl> Hi Elvis, > I see that the Last Call has ended on the 6th of January 2014. > > Have the WG Chairs reached a decision with 2013-03 ? Almost, a little more patience :) Sander