From nikolas.pediaditis at ripe.net Thu Oct 1 11:16:17 2015 From: nikolas.pediaditis at ripe.net (Nikolas Pediaditis) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:16:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" In-Reply-To: <7CBB6B02-0135-4BF1-B098-054F3184E88E@a2b-internet.com> References: <512FCD12-5A16-4D19-ABE9-517C3D394FA5@ripe.net> <7CBB6B02-0135-4BF1-B098-054F3184E88E@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> Hi Erik, The moratorium that the APNIC EC had set for inter-RIR transfers with the RIPE NCC has been officially lifted as of early September and it was announced during APNIC 40. The transcript of the APNIC 40 AMM session is available at: https://conference.apnic.net/data/40/10-Sept-AMM.txt Here is the quotation with regard to this matter: "Inter-RIR transfer policy: it was one of the items which the Executive Council decided previously. We had a moratorium for the inter-RIR transfer with RIPE NCC, but at this time in the Executive Council meeting on Monday, we decided to resolve to lift -- that means discontinue -- the temporary moratorium on the inter-RIR transfers with RIPE NCC. That is the reaction that RIPE NCC recently set the new inter-RIR transfer policy to require the recipient of the transfer from the other RIR region which has the demonstrated need policy. So that helped us to lift this moratorium. So now you can transfer the IPv4 address, if you need it, with someone in the RIPE NCC region." There is also the video version available (at 58:38): https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#sessions/amm Therefore inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 and ASNs are possible between resource holders in the APNIC and RIPE regions. Both RIRs will be cooperating in accordance with their policies. Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services > On 30 Sep 2015, at 23:50, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: > > I had to look it up in the Apricot APNIC archive of 2015, but the actual bit that I am referring to is the following : > > http://youtu.be/2iKK_8iJU6E where Andrea Chima from RIPE NCC is explaining the inter-RIR transfer policy on stage ( around 1:17 ) ... And Paul Wilson from APNIC is starting at 1:24 upto 1:35 at the mic on the topic. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > Op 30 sep. 2015 om 21:05 heeft Erik Bais - A2B Internet het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi Nikolas, >> >> Thank you for the work and this update. >> >> Could you or Marco perhaps provide a quick update on what the current status is in the inter-rir transfer status between APNIC and RIPE region, after the APNIC exec-board announced that it would hold transfers until further notice earlier this year ... >> >> Regards, >> Erik Bais >> >> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >> >>> Op 30 sep. 2015 om 16:51 heeft Nikolas Pediaditis het volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources". >>> >>> In accordance with the new policy, Internet number resources can be transferred between resource holders in the RIPE NCC service region and resource holders in the service regions of other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). >>> >>> Inter-RIR transfers are possible between RIRs with compatible policies. Currently, ARIN and APNIC are the only RIRs that can perform inter-RIR transfers with the RIPE NCC: >>> >>> - IPv4 addresses can be transferred to/from the ARIN service region >>> - IPv4 addresses and AS Numbers can be transferred to/from the APNIC service region >>> >>> The main web page on inter-RIR transfers with the supporting documentation and all related information to get you started can be found at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/inter-rir-transfers >>> >>> The archived policy proposal can be found at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-05 >>> >>> The RIPE Document, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources", is available at: >>> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Nikolas Pediaditis >>> RIPE NCC Registration Services >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tore at fud.no Thu Oct 1 11:33:51 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:33:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" In-Reply-To: <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> References: <512FCD12-5A16-4D19-ABE9-517C3D394FA5@ripe.net> <7CBB6B02-0135-4BF1-B098-054F3184E88E@a2b-internet.com> <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151001113351.46cfd4a4@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> * Nikolas Pediaditis > The moratorium that the APNIC EC had set for inter-RIR transfers with > the RIPE NCC has been officially lifted as of early September and it > was announced during APNIC 40. > > The transcript of the APNIC 40 AMM session is available at: > https://conference.apnic.net/data/40/10-Sept-AMM.txt > > Here is the quotation with regard to this matter: > > "Inter-RIR transfer policy: it was one of the items which the > Executive Council decided previously. We had a moratorium for the > inter-RIR transfer with RIPE NCC, but at this time in the Executive > Council meeting on Monday, we decided to resolve to lift -- that > means discontinue -- the temporary moratorium on the inter-RIR > transfers with RIPE NCC. That is the reaction that RIPE NCC recently > set the new inter-RIR transfer policy to require the recipient of the > transfer from the other RIR region which has the demonstrated need > policy. So that helped us to lift this moratorium. So now you can > transfer the IPv4 address, if you need it, with someone in the RIPE > NCC region." > > There is also the video version available (at 58:38): > https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#sessions/amm > > Therefore inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 and ASNs are possible between > resource holders in the APNIC and RIPE regions. Both RIRs will be > cooperating in accordance with their policies. Nicholas, Thank you for the update. I hope you can clarify one thing for me, which I find the APNIC and RIPE communites' policies to be crystal clear about, but given the above quote as well as the phrasing in section IV of ripe-651 I am not so sure about the actual implementation. It's a simple yes or no question: If there is a transfer from the APNIC region to the RIPE region, will the RIPE region recipient required to ?provide a plan to the RIPE NCC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within 5 years?? Tore From ebais at a2b-internet.com Thu Oct 1 12:21:13 2015 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:21:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" In-Reply-To: <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> References: <512FCD12-5A16-4D19-ABE9-517C3D394FA5@ripe.net> <7CBB6B02-0135-4BF1-B098-054F3184E88E@a2b-internet.com> <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> Message-ID: <00d301d0fc32$e9d29200$bd77b600$@a2b-internet.com> Thanks for the update Nikolas. Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Nikolas Pediaditis Verzonden: donderdag 1 oktober 2015 11:16 Aan: Erik Bais - A2B Internet CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" Hi Erik, The moratorium that the APNIC EC had set for inter-RIR transfers with the RIPE NCC has been officially lifted as of early September and it was announced during APNIC 40. The transcript of the APNIC 40 AMM session is available at: https://conference.apnic.net/data/40/10-Sept-AMM.txt Here is the quotation with regard to this matter: "Inter-RIR transfer policy: it was one of the items which the Executive Council decided previously. We had a moratorium for the inter-RIR transfer with RIPE NCC, but at this time in the Executive Council meeting on Monday, we decided to resolve to lift -- that means discontinue -- the temporary moratorium on the inter-RIR transfers with RIPE NCC. That is the reaction that RIPE NCC recently set the new inter-RIR transfer policy to require the recipient of the transfer from the other RIR region which has the demonstrated need policy. So that helped us to lift this moratorium. So now you can transfer the IPv4 address, if you need it, with someone in the RIPE NCC region." There is also the video version available (at 58:38): https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#sessions/amm Therefore inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 and ASNs are possible between resource holders in the APNIC and RIPE regions. Both RIRs will be cooperating in accordance with their policies. Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services On 30 Sep 2015, at 23:50, Erik Bais - A2B Internet > wrote: I had to look it up in the Apricot APNIC archive of 2015, but the actual bit that I am referring to is the following : http://youtu.be/2iKK_8iJU6E where Andrea Chima from RIPE NCC is explaining the inter-RIR transfer policy on stage ( around 1:17 ) ... And Paul Wilson from APNIC is starting at 1:24 upto 1:35 at the mic on the topic. Regards, Erik Bais Op 30 sep. 2015 om 21:05 heeft Erik Bais - A2B Internet > het volgende geschreven: Hi Nikolas, Thank you for the work and this update. Could you or Marco perhaps provide a quick update on what the current status is in the inter-rir transfer status between APNIC and RIPE region, after the APNIC exec-board announced that it would hold transfers until further notice earlier this year ... Regards, Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op 30 sep. 2015 om 16:51 heeft Nikolas Pediaditis > het volgende geschreven: Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources". In accordance with the new policy, Internet number resources can be transferred between resource holders in the RIPE NCC service region and resource holders in the service regions of other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Inter-RIR transfers are possible between RIRs with compatible policies. Currently, ARIN and APNIC are the only RIRs that can perform inter-RIR transfers with the RIPE NCC: - IPv4 addresses can be transferred to/from the ARIN service region - IPv4 addresses and AS Numbers can be transferred to/from the APNIC service region The main web page on inter-RIR transfers with the supporting documentation and all related information to get you started can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tran sfers/inter-rir-transfers The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-05 The RIPE Document, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-644 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Oct 1 15:12:56 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:12:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 Proposal Accepted (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on the proposal to amend RIPE Document ripe-650, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". This policy change introduces new criteria for the evaluation of large IPv6 allocation requests: * Hierarchical and geographical structure * Segmentation for security * Planned longevity The existing requirements in the policy that stipulate the number of users a nd extent of the infrastructure remain unchanged. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-655 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 We estimate that this proposal will take about one week to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From nikolas.pediaditis at ripe.net Thu Oct 1 17:59:43 2015 From: nikolas.pediaditis at ripe.net (Nikolas Pediaditis) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:59:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" In-Reply-To: <20151001113351.46cfd4a4@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> References: <512FCD12-5A16-4D19-ABE9-517C3D394FA5@ripe.net> <7CBB6B02-0135-4BF1-B098-054F3184E88E@a2b-internet.com> <5602BECC-00EC-4231-863E-136A15610861@ripe.net> <20151001113351.46cfd4a4@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <678CC374-7A18-43E7-9295-FD66BCDC5624@ripe.net> Hi Tore, The answer to your question is No - for a transfer from APNIC to RIPE there is no need to provide a usage plan. But I would like to briefly explain this answer. There is no requirement in APNIC?s inter-RIR transfer policy for the counterpart RIR to adhere to needs-based policies: https://www.apnic.net/policy/resources#8.2. Inter-RIR IPv4 address transfers This is in contrast with ARIN?s inter-RIR transfer policy: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight4 Therefore, as policies stand at the moment in all three RIRs, the needs-based evaluation is only for transfers from ARIN to the RIPE NCC. > but given the above quote as well as the phrasing in section IV of ripe-651 You are right and thank you for noticing this. The wording in section IV of ripe-651 was incorrect and gave the wrong impression. We updated section IV of the document to ensure it accurately reflects the policy text. The updated document will be published shortly and will be ripe-656. Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services > On 01 Oct 2015, at 11:33, Tore Anderson wrote: > > * Nikolas Pediaditis > >> The moratorium that the APNIC EC had set for inter-RIR transfers with >> the RIPE NCC has been officially lifted as of early September and it >> was announced during APNIC 40. >> >> The transcript of the APNIC 40 AMM session is available at: >> https://conference.apnic.net/data/40/10-Sept-AMM.txt >> >> Here is the quotation with regard to this matter: >> >> "Inter-RIR transfer policy: it was one of the items which the >> Executive Council decided previously. We had a moratorium for the >> inter-RIR transfer with RIPE NCC, but at this time in the Executive >> Council meeting on Monday, we decided to resolve to lift -- that >> means discontinue -- the temporary moratorium on the inter-RIR >> transfers with RIPE NCC. That is the reaction that RIPE NCC recently >> set the new inter-RIR transfer policy to require the recipient of the >> transfer from the other RIR region which has the demonstrated need >> policy. So that helped us to lift this moratorium. So now you can >> transfer the IPv4 address, if you need it, with someone in the RIPE >> NCC region." >> >> There is also the video version available (at 58:38): >> https://conference.apnic.net/40/program#sessions/amm >> >> Therefore inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 and ASNs are possible between >> resource holders in the APNIC and RIPE regions. Both RIRs will be >> cooperating in accordance with their policies. > > Nicholas, > > Thank you for the update. I hope you can clarify one thing for me, > which I find the APNIC and RIPE communites' policies to be crystal > clear about, but given the above quote as well as the phrasing in > section IV of ripe-651 I am not so sure about the actual implementation. > > It's a simple yes or no question: If there is a transfer from the APNIC > region to the RIPE region, will the RIPE region recipient required to > ?provide a plan to the RIPE NCC for the use of at least 50% of the > transferred resources within 5 years?? > > Tore > > From Mathew.Newton643 at official.mod.uk Thu Oct 1 20:05:01 2015 From: Mathew.Newton643 at official.mod.uk (Mathew Newton) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:05:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 Proposal Accepted (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Message-ID: Hi Marco, > Consensus has been reached on the proposal to amend RIPE Document > ripe-650, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". > The new RIPE Document is called ripe-655 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 That's great news! > Thank you to everyone who provided input. Yes, and thanks also to you and your colleagues for your assistance throughout the process. Regards, Mathew From ripe at opteamax.de Fri Oct 2 11:17:19 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 11:17:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560E4B9F.8000505@opteamax.de> Hi, I'd like to put another idea into this policy, as I just ran into this issue. But before proposing it, I want to point out that I really like the 24 month hold-period before transfer in general to reduce the effect of "Create LIR - get /22 - sell /22 - close LIR". Still I would like to propose an exception to this 24month hold period for the case of "swapping" IP-Space: Here the issue I have. My LIR leased our last /22 to a transit customer. This transit customer is now being taken over by another LIR. This LIR does not want to renumber the end-users, but also does not want to lease the IPs anymore. Therefore this LIR proposed to request his last /22 and transfer it to us and at the same time we transfer our /22 to his LIR. So far - so good, but this is not working with current policy-text for the next 24 month, as the current policy forces us to wait 24 months before we can do that. In practice this does not make real difference, as we could simply make a contract that I lease his /22 and he leases mine for the next 24 months, but I think this actually doesn't make sense and also has never been the intention of the policy. For this reason I'd like to propose an exception on this 24month period in section 2.2 of the current proposal 2015-04 as follows: "This 24 months period is not needed, if two LIR swap allocations of identical size." What do you think about that? Thanks and best regards Jens Ott PS: @Gert: Did you realize that I signed with full name and also changed the sender's name for writing to the list ... so now there's no more reason to call me Jens 'Opteamax' :D On 14.08.2015 11:54, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" has been > made and is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all > relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 14 September. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > !DSPAM:637,55cdbc45319867115668180! > -- Jens Ott Gesch?ftsf?hrer Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From matt.parker at ripe.net Wed Oct 7 12:19:37 2015 From: matt.parker at ripe.net (Matt Parker) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:19:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" Message-ID: <5614F1B9.90907@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services From mir at ripe.net Thu Oct 8 10:53:19 2015 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:53:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 in the RIPE NCC Service Region - Three Years After Reaching the Last /8 Message-ID: <56162EFF.9040709@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, In September 2012 the RIPE NCC reached its last /8 of available IPv4 addresses. This activated a new phase in the RIPE IPv4 policies, with each LIR now eligible to receive one final /22 allocation. In this new article on RIPE Labs we look at developments in IPv4 allocations and remaining addresses at the RIPE NCC in the three years since then: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-three-years-after-reaching-the-last-8 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Thu Oct 8 14:37:54 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:37:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Discussion Period over, moving to Impact Analysis and then Review Phase (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20151008123754.GA554@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:15:26PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" > has been extended until 25 September 2015. The discussion phase is now over. There was quite a bit of feedback, much of it asking for clarification, but as far as I could see, some support and no strong opposition - which is good enough for the discussion phase. I do want to see the impact analysis on this, and discuss the potential changes this proposal brings slightly more educated (read: based on the NCC's understanding of the changes) :-) Thus I've asked Marco to prepare the impact analysis, and then we move 2015-04 to the review phase and also discuss at the upcoming RIPE 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Thu Oct 8 14:44:48 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:44:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Discussion Period over, moving to Impact Analysis and then Review Phase (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <20151008123754.GA554@Space.Net> References: <20151008123754.GA554@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20151008124448.GO84167@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:37:54PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > There was quite a bit of feedback, much of it asking for clarification, > but as far as I could see, some support and no strong opposition - which > is good enough for the discussion phase. > > I do want to see the impact analysis on this, and discuss the potential > changes this proposal brings slightly more educated (read: based on the > NCC's understanding of the changes) :-) Uh, for clarification: I *did* see some opposition, but no "strong opposition to the proposal in general". The opposition was to some of the policy changes this brings, and I think it's valuable to discuss this with the Impact Analysis already done. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Thu Oct 8 15:18:14 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:18:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Discussion Period over, moving to Impact Analysis and then Review Phase (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <20151008124448.GO84167@Space.Net> References: <20151008123754.GA554@Space.Net> <20151008124448.GO84167@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20151008131814.GI64445@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Uh, for clarification: I *did* see some opposition, but no "strong >opposition to the proposal in general". The opposition was to some of >the policy changes this brings, and I think it's valuable to discuss >this with the Impact Analysis already done. Some of this opposition was from me. I fully agree that we need the Impact Analysis to properly judge the impact of the proposal and was waiting for it, too. rgds, Sascha Luck From John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch Fri Oct 9 09:03:42 2015 From: John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch (John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:03:42 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" In-Reply-To: <5614F1B9.90907@ripe.net> References: <5614F1B9.90907@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347D7EA3036@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Dear Matt, many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail. I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are: a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify? b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used? Many thanks and kind regards, John -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matt Parker Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation - Planned longevity of the allocation - Segmentation of infrastructure for security You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation The archived policy proposal can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services From John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch Fri Oct 9 13:19:07 2015 From: John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch (John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:19:07 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" In-Reply-To: <56179C59.3080502@ripe.net> References: <5614F1B9.90907@ripe.net> <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347D7EA3036@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> <56179C59.3080502@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347D7EA31CD@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Hi Matt, many thanks for the clarification. Kind regards, John -----Original Message----- From: Matt Parker [mailto:matt.parker at ripe.net] Sent: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 12:52 To: Collins John BIT ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" Dear John, Thank you for you email. You are perfectly correct; eight cities requiring a /48 results in a /45, and not a /44 as in our example. This was an oversight and the example on the website has been updated to reflect the correct assignment sizes. The extra bit is not included in the example since it is demonstrating how the request is evaluated in terms of amount of users and the extent of infrastructure. Taking the hierarchical and geographical structure of the organisation into consideration would allow the RIPE NCC to consider an extra bit at each level, however the need must be justified. To consider our example, the organisation may be expanding into new cities, thereby justifying one extra bit at the city level. They may also be expanding into new regions, which would justify one extra bit at the regional level. However, unless they have specific documented plans to expand into new countries, they would not justify an extra bit at country level. I can confirm that there is no limit to the number of levels of hierarchy permitted in an organisation's addressing plan. With documentation which reasonably justifies the request, an extra bit can be considered for each level. It is important to remember that the total allocation size should be calculated starting from the lowest network level working up through the network hierarchy. If you have any further questions please let us know. Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services On 09/10/15 09:03, John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch wrote: > Dear Matt, > > many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail. > > I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are: > > a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify? > > b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used? > > Many thanks and kind regards, > John > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Matt Parker > Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" > > Dear colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". > > In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: > > - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation > - Planned longevity of the allocation > - Segmentation of infrastructure for security > > You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment- > criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation > > The archived policy proposal can be found here: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > > The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 > > > Kind regards, > > Matt Parker > RIPE NCC Registration Services > From matt.parker at ripe.net Fri Oct 9 12:52:09 2015 From: matt.parker at ripe.net (Matt Parker) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 12:52:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" In-Reply-To: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347D7EA3036@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> References: <5614F1B9.90907@ripe.net> <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347D7EA3036@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Message-ID: <56179C59.3080502@ripe.net> Dear John, Thank you for you email. You are perfectly correct; eight cities requiring a /48 results in a /45, and not a /44 as in our example. This was an oversight and the example on the website has been updated to reflect the correct assignment sizes. The extra bit is not included in the example since it is demonstrating how the request is evaluated in terms of amount of users and the extent of infrastructure. Taking the hierarchical and geographical structure of the organisation into consideration would allow the RIPE NCC to consider an extra bit at each level, however the need must be justified. To consider our example, the organisation may be expanding into new cities, thereby justifying one extra bit at the city level. They may also be expanding into new regions, which would justify one extra bit at the regional level. However, unless they have specific documented plans to expand into new countries, they would not justify an extra bit at country level. I can confirm that there is no limit to the number of levels of hierarchy permitted in an organisation's addressing plan. With documentation which reasonably justifies the request, an extra bit can be considered for each level. It is important to remember that the total allocation size should be calculated starting from the lowest network level working up through the network hierarchy. If you have any further questions please let us know. Kind regards, Matt Parker RIPE NCC Registration Services On 09/10/15 09:03, John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch wrote: > Dear Matt, > > many thanks for the policy proposal implementation and for your e-mail. > > I have one or two questions regarding the example in the information about the expanded evaluation criteria (link below). I realise that you were just providing an example and all examples have their limitations. I hope however that your answer might help me and possibly others to better understand the new policy. The questions are: > > a) if you have 8 cities each requiring a /48 then you need a /45 and not a /44 as in your example. Is the extra bit already included in the /44? This is not clear because you imply it but do not state it explicitly. The same applies to the Region and Country structuring. Can you clarify? > > b) Why stop at 3 levels of hierarchy? For example a city may be divided into suburban regions. Maybe there are also 8 suburban regions per city. If this would be the case would it be possible to have one more extra bit - finally resulting in a /35 instead of a /36 as in your example? And countries may be structured into continental regions - let's assume we have 8 of these too. Here we need one extra bit too, finally resulting in a /34. Generally the question is: is there some limit on the number of levels of hierarchy for which an "extra bit" may be used? > > Many thanks and kind regards, > John > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Matt Parker > Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2015 12:20 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" > > Dear colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size". > > In accordance with the new policy, the criteria used to evaluate the size of an initial IPv6 allocations has been expanded to include: > > - Hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation > - Planned longevity of the allocation > - Segmentation of infrastructure for security > > You can find more information about the expanded evaluation criteria here: > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/assessment-criteria-for-initial-ipv6-allocation > > The archived policy proposal can be found here: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > > The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available here: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 > > > Kind regards, > > Matt Parker > RIPE NCC Registration Services > From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Oct 12 12:08:01 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:08:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 70 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes Message-ID: <4C735F05-FDAE-4068-824D-4248E7E30103@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 70 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From job at instituut.net Thu Oct 15 12:04:10 2015 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:04:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4 In-Reply-To: <20150811101214.GQ53906@Vurt.local> References: <20150811091536.GL53906@Vurt.local> <20150811101214.GQ53906@Vurt.local> Message-ID: <20151015100410.GY14945@Vurt.local> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:12:14PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > It should be noted that the below message is an "in-between poll" to > seek guidance for the next formal version. As Gert aptly pointed out to > me, technically I now started a "random discussion". :-) It might be of interest to note that in the APNIC region a policy change, not unsimilar to 2014-03, is continuing forward: https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114/prop-114-v003.txt Kind regards, Job From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Oct 20 14:46:54 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:46:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Message-ID: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Tue Oct 20 15:02:38 2015 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:02:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From gert at space.net Tue Oct 20 15:06:56 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:06:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote: > On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing > the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or is a total no-go... (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) ) gert -- 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From phessler at theapt.org Tue Oct 20 15:06:57 2015 From: phessler at theapt.org (Peter Hessler) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:06:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a single /22? From garry at nethinks.com Tue Oct 20 15:12:27 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:12:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <56263DBB.7070603@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: > : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > From the proposed text: > 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation > > Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a > single /22? > According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic use case of a pool - to use it. Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25% free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever is less. -garry From tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk Tue Oct 20 15:15:39 2015 From: tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk (Tom Hill) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:15:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56263E7B.9040200@bytemark.co.uk> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote: > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before > throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? I was thinking the very same, actually. If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative, it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other direction (too liberal). - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWJj57AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ667cIAKqXrjTZ6G8INUXbLWoyX9Si za3OLzLUUA1bXwMffhzXkPhbDx5LWSosXuuFOkys2J3UgyvSyAN2OPhdwoPteblN xr9RZUPaIkzhSLJEA+2tvABvW5OvCGJ298K8OnEjIWZpp/Oh/fsMbfETrqCE4nau GxbT8mIxWG9oqdrpAU1TuQces6AYasJvvcXK1bkvkTMTgurXqITuPjb+EaTasADE Reo4A0O9RnLgRVMElVcNP61DWNpZp/WOLSqBH8rlzI0nexySAZAvQteSnfDkL/vi YQcTQP6SNSD//aOp4MycRfj9QIHniyhpWRYH/+z0LJ+oxiHwwMpquSP3O9oWKhY= =gteR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Oct 20 15:16:06 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:16:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would not support it. > On 20 Oct 2015, at 1:46 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From marco at naefmarco.ch Tue Oct 20 15:14:55 2015 From: marco at naefmarco.ch (=?UTF-8?Q?Marco_N=C3=A4f?=) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:14:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hello I signed up as a LIR one year ago. > LIRs that opened after 14 September 2012 can only have a /22 allocated > by the RIPE NCC as per the current policy, which gives them a disadvantage > compared to older LIRs that were able to obtain at least a /21 regardless of their needs. I will support this proposal exactly because of this. Of course in my opinion IPv6 will not be deployed when the IPv4 pool isn't empty, because every provider will buy IPv4 space or open other LIRs to get more IPv4 addresses instead of deploying IPv6. Regards Marco Am 20.10.2015 14:46, schrieb Marco Schmidt: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgori at wirem.net Tue Oct 20 15:25:04 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:25:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> Dear all, I like this new policy text. I would support it but I would add some text as follows [...] 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are met: [...] 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its registry [...] regards Riccardo Il 20/10/2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info at wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info at wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l. via Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Tue Oct 20 15:21:10 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:21:10 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: Hello The Condition " 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry." is very important to prevent abuse, however can the text be revised to say " 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space to any other entity" pardon my ignorance but im confused by the exact meaning of "out of its registry" in the condtion 1, Thanks Tom Smyth On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: > : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > From the proposed text: > 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation > > Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a > single /22? > > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elvis at velea.eu Tue Oct 20 15:37:35 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:37:35 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5626439F.500@velea.eu> Hi James, Gert, On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote: >> On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing >> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? not a bad idea, I like it. > We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is > really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is generally > acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or > is a total no-go... let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second version. > > (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how > many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" > and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date ;) ) Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody can predict how long will the free pool last. - I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment. > gert cheers, elvis From elvis at velea.eu Tue Oct 20 15:40:29 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:40:29 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <5626444D.3090000@velea.eu> Hi, On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: > : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > From the proposed text: > 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation > > Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a > single /22? > good question. Not sure what would happen if a single /22 is no longer available. My intention would be for the last allocation to be the remaining crumbs (even if less than a /22). Currently, the proposal's intention is to allow allocations lower than a /22 as long as the total would be 1024 IPs. regards, elvis From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Oct 20 15:42:10 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:42:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <5626439F.500@velea.eu> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> <5626439F.500@velea.eu> Message-ID: I agree it is a guess, but also should be an easy estimation(not very accure one but rough one) if we taking burning rate of past 36 month into account. I think NCC can clearify this future. On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi James, Gert, > > On 10/20/15 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:02:38PM +0100, James Blessing wrote: >> >>> On 20 October 2015 at 13:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >>>> >>> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing >>> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? >>> >> not a bad idea, I like it. > >> We're in discussion phase right now, so everything goes... :-) - this is >> really the phase where a proposal test the waters to see if it is >> generally >> acceptable (potentially with minor corrections), needs larger surgery, or >> is a total no-go... >> > let's collect the feedback and see if we need to come back with a second > version. > >> >> (As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how >> many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" >> and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date >> ;) ) >> > Let's not forget that the crystal ball is just that... a guess. Nobody can > predict how long will the free pool last. > - I hope this also answers Lu's question/comment. > >> gert >> > cheers, > elvis > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 15:46:18 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:46:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <1445348778.868240.415270953.1D90982D@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:06, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: > : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > From the proposed text: > 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the > allocation > > Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a > single /22? A /22 or equivalent. Given de structure of the remaining space, the "or equivalent" shouldn't may times (if ever). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From elvis at velea.eu Tue Oct 20 15:50:12 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:50:12 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56263DBB.7070603@nethinks.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GP23525@gir.theapt.org> <56263DBB.7070603@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <56264694.8010009@velea.eu> Hi Garry, On 10/20/15 4:12 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > Guten Tag, >> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: >> : https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> From the proposed text: >> 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation >> >> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a >> single /22? >> > According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic > use case of a pool - to use it. > > Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a > provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25% > free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever > is less. we did not intend to include need based criteria back to the IPv4 policy. It would be very difficult. Imagine that I am an LIR and have a /22, this policy proposal is approved and I am using a /24 only. As there is no requirement for needs based justification, I can register a /23,/24 assignment to a 'potential' customer and delete it once I got the second /22 allocation. We could add in the policy that a small 'audit' (ARC) should be performed to verify that the LIR has recorded in the RIPE Database assignments for all the already used space. This way, we could help the registration goal. > -garry > cheers, elvis From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 15:52:17 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:52:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on > the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would > not support it. 5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 15:59:50 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:59:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> Message-ID: <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote: > I would support it but I would add some text as follows > > 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its > registry > [...] Hi, This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against". Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Oct 20 16:01:02 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:01:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them. > On 20 Oct 2015, at 2:52 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: >> Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on >> the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would >> not support it. > > 5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. > Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry > (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just > look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > fr.ccs From lists at velder.li Tue Oct 20 16:04:29 2015 From: lists at velder.li (Patrick Velder) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:04:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <562649ED.6060307@velder.li> Hi +1 for the proposal. To stop abuse, it should be prevented that people open 10 LIRs and merge them just after receiving the /22 (like at.prager-it-*). Regards Patrick On 20.10.2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:18:32 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:18:32 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: Hi. >a. Arguments supporting the proposal >Faster depletion of the free IPv4 pool may force the adoption of IPv6 on certain members. But there is conflict with 2015-01, was accepted to prevent depletion of the free IPv4 pool, wasn't it? This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the text of this one. 2015-10-20 17:01 GMT+03:00 : > Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them. > >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 2:52 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:16, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: >>> Sounds not bad idea, if current pool last us more than 5 years...but on >>> the other hand, If it will shorten the lasting period below 5, I would >>> not support it. >> >> 5 years seems borderline even with existing policy. >> Then, in about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry >> (ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just >> look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space. >> >> -- >> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> fr.ccs > -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk Tue Oct 20 16:07:04 2015 From: Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk (Dickinson, Ian) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:07:04 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144D77@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently). An LIR with a /19 can have need. An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote: > I would support it but I would add some text as follows > > 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its > registry > [...] Hi, This is something that could be done provided there are enough people "for" and not many people "against". Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:27:21 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:27:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 20 16:27:25 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:27:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing > the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 16:29:16 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:29:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <1445351356.878226.415306553.0123897F@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:18, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > But there is conflict with 2015-01, was accepted to prevent depletion > of the free IPv4 pool, wasn't it? > 2015-01 was published and adopted in order to prevent abuse... as is the "no outbound transfers" criteria for further allocations. > This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the > text of this one. Where do you see an incompatibility between the two ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From erik at bais.name Tue Oct 20 16:28:53 2015 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:28:53 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C016129B489@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> > first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 I fully agree on that.. Erik -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Randy Bush Verzonden: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 16:27 Aan: James Blessing CC: Address Policy Working Group Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing > the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 20 16:30:39 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:30:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: > The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as > far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to > this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves > without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address > space. remco, you are cheating. you actually understand the last /8 policy. this is just the semi-annual squealing from piggies at the trough randy From marty at akamai.com Tue Oct 20 16:37:39 2015 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:37:39 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net>, Message-ID: <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> Yes, agree. Nice summary. Not in favor. Best, Marty > On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook wrote: > > > Hi all, > > (no hats) > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. > > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. > > Remco > > * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > > >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", >> is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC > From a.sakun at infomir.eu Tue Oct 20 16:37:49 2015 From: a.sakun at infomir.eu (Sakun Alexey) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:37:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144D77@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144D77@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> Message-ID: <562651BD.50602@infomir.eu> Hi! I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I think its not fair. If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think no. 20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian ?????: > I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently). > > An LIR with a /19 can have need. > An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 > To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote: >> I would support it but I would add some text as follows >> >> 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its >> registry >> [...] > Hi, > > This is something that could be done provided there are enough people > "for" and not many people "against". > > Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > fr.ccs > > Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. > > -- Best regards, Sakun Alexey IT department Infomir Ukraine tel. +380667955166 From nick at inex.ie Tue Oct 20 16:40:24 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:40:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56265258.3090604@inex.ie> > 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months > from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are > met: > 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry. Is this to be interpreted as: a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry or b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its registry? Option b is enforceable but largely pointless. Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation. This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order to justify getting more IP address space. This is not good stewardship of resources. Nick From frettled at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:40:28 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:40:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56263E7B.9040200@bytemark.co.uk> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56263E7B.9040200@bytemark.co.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Tom Hill wrote: > On 20/10/15 14:02, James Blessing wrote: > > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before > > throwing the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? > > I was thinking the very same, actually. > > If we're thinking that the current policy has been too conservative, > it seems like we should be cautious not to swing too far in the other > direction (too liberal). > > Here's a thought experiment: Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose. This means that up to 1024 additional allocation requests may be made. It means that it is predictable, and according to those who complain the most about the strict policy, should be more than ample enough to handle those who think they need more IPv4 space. There would not need to be any further restrictions than those that are already in the policy and this proposal. Pro: - ensures that we don't accidentally "liberate" our RIR of its current pool - ensures that small actors get a bit more Con: - still unfair to greater LIRs - only a small pool, which risks being a "oh, cool, it's gone" experiment -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.sleigh at ee.co.uk Tue Oct 20 16:46:48 2015 From: robert.sleigh at ee.co.uk (Sleigh, Robert) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:46:48 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C016129B489@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C016129B489@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE095F@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> First names too... Regards Bob Sleigh -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: 20 October 2015 15:29 To: Randy Bush; James Blessing Cc: Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) > first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B > should get a /16 I fully agree on that.. Erik -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Randy Bush Verzonden: dinsdag 20 oktober 2015 16:27 Aan: James Blessing CC: Address Policy Working Group Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing > the entire remaining v4 space under a bus? first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should get a /16 randy NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW. From phessler at theapt.org Tue Oct 20 16:46:57 2015 From: phessler at theapt.org (Peter Hessler) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:46:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable IPv4 space. While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and needs one. I am against this proposal. [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an allocation that belonged to it. On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: : :Hi all, : :(no hats) : :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. : :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. : :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. : :Remco : :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. From robert.sleigh at ee.co.uk Tue Oct 20 16:53:57 2015 From: robert.sleigh at ee.co.uk (Sleigh, Robert) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:53:57 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net>, <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> Message-ID: <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE099A@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> Thanks Remco, for your clarity I'm against this proposal too Regards Bob Sleigh -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: 20 October 2015 15:38 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; Remco van Mook Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Yes, agree. Nice summary. Not in favor. Best, Marty > On Oct 20, 2015, at 15:27, Remco van Mook wrote: > > > Hi all, > > (no hats) > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. > > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won't make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won't happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we're still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. > > Remco > > * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > > >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation >> Criteria", is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional >> /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC > NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW. From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 16:56:20 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:56:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: Dear, all. I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on current resource number and age of the LIR. E.g. LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent Or First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. 2015-10-20 17:46 GMT+03:00 Peter Hessler : > As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 > policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it > allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable > IPv4 space. > > While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough > space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and > needs one. > > I am against this proposal. > > > [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's > IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an > allocation that belonged to it. > > > On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote: > : > :Hi all, > : > :(no hats) > : > :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. > : > :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > : > :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. > : > :Remco > : > :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From tom at kebab.org.pl Tue Oct 20 17:00:20 2015 From: tom at kebab.org.pl (=?UTF-8?B?IlRvbWFzeiDFmmzEhXNraSBAIEtFQkFCIg==?=) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:00:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <56265704.2090200@kebab.org.pl> W dniu 2015-10-20 o 16:56, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze: > Dear, all. > > I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on > current resource number and age of the LIR. > > E.g. > LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent > Or > First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. > > I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. > Do you think, that the remaining space from last /8 is made of rubber? -- Tomasz ?l?ski pl.skonet From sergey at devnull.ru Tue Oct 20 17:02:20 2015 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:02:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <1005920124.20151020170220@devnull.ru> That's not fair, but I would not object :) Tuesday, October 20, 2015, 4:56:20 PM, you wrote: AB> I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on AB> current resource number and age of the LIR. AB> E.g. AB> LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent AB> Or AB> First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. -- Sergey From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:04:19 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:04:19 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56265704.2090200@kebab.org.pl> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> <56265704.2090200@kebab.org.pl> Message-ID: Of course, if you accept 2015-01 to prevent depletion and then 2015-05. 2015-10-20 18:00 GMT+03:00 "Tomasz ?l?ski @ KEBAB" : > W dniu 2015-10-20 o 16:56, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze: >> >> Dear, all. >> >> I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on >> current resource number and age of the LIR. >> >> E.g. >> LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent >> Or >> First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - >> /20 etc. >> >> I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. >> > > Do you think, that the remaining space from last /8 is made of rubber? > > -- > Tomasz ?l?ski > pl.skonet -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Tue Oct 20 17:12:40 2015 From: wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:12:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE099A@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE099A@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> Message-ID: <68D05A68-7205-49D8-ADEF-3F8F4120A961@de-cix.net> I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....) Wolfgang > On 20.10.2015, at 16:53, Sleigh, Robert wrote: > >> I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 17:17:12 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:17:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <726C2B77-373D-497C-B62F-B51F60F6DBAC@anytimechinese.com> <1445349137.870557.415274249.1B3B1896@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9EB366B3-21BE-4B7C-A93C-1043464B070C@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <1445354232.889829.415364873.40294E1A@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:01, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > Based on current v6 deploy rate, my guess is in 5 years an new start up > LIR would still appreciate a free /22 available for them. My crystal ball ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QN-VW2U2rLiXn7uFvGt249mChXJ9Cjnq1PsyD4ALqtc/edit?usp=sharing ) has some doubts about it. ... and I can see that LIRs open (in oder to use IPv4 space for service not transfer) during the last 3 years have second thoughts after the inital joy of "we got a /22". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From frettled at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 17:17:38 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:17:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Dear, all. > > I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on > current resource number and age of the LIR. > > E.g. > LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent > Or > First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - > /20 etc. > > I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. > > I think the first suggestion will be an outright disaster. If I represented a LIR holding something around a /8 to a /10, I would jump on it and ensure that I was first in line. As would others with such large allocations. The second suggestion is hopeless, as it suggests an accelerated depletion, as well as guarantees that very soon, people will not be able to get the allocation size they request. As a matter of principle, I think the current and active policy is decent enough for new allocations. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Tue Oct 20 17:26:37 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:26:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20151020152637.GJ64445@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 At last one I can +1 without much headache. The idea is not to still have the most unused ipv4 space when ipv6 is finally the default. rgds, Sascha Luck From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 17:28:41 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 17:28:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562651BD.50602@infomir.eu> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144D77@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> <562651BD.50602@infomir.eu> Message-ID: <1445354921.892201.415371097.1D34565F@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:37, Sakun Alexey wrote: > Hi! > > I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I > think its not fair. > If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think > no. Hi, This is one of the reasons we didn't put that criteria in the initial version. On the other hand, with proper clean-up (which I realise is not something done regularily by most companies - LIR or not), a LIR having a /19 could recover more "no-loger-used" space than a LIR having only a /22 or a /21, and way less that a LIR having a /10 (which may under some circumstance recover the equivalent of a full /22 just by performing clean-up). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk Tue Oct 20 17:33:00 2015 From: Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk (Dickinson, Ian) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:33:00 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144E2B@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook Sent: 20 October 2015 15:27 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. From dscotland at plus.net Tue Oct 20 17:40:24 2015 From: dscotland at plus.net (dscotland at plus.net) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:40:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020130656.GZ70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 20/10/2015 14:06, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" wrote: >(As for the impact: I hope the NCC will nicely do the math for us how >many LIRs we currently have that would be eligible to receive "more space" >and what their crystall balls have to say on the subsequent run-out date >;) ) Using the figures provided by RIPE earlier in the month [0] there were 6990 active LIRs with their final /22 on 1st October, of these 4383 (61.3%) signed up after 14th September 2012. So that's 4383 LIRs that would be able to request a further /22 every 18 months. >From the above report the allocation rate of v4 addresses is 8.5 /22s per day, 18 months after this policy gets implemented that might rise by 61.3% (the percentage of new LIRs with their final /22) to 13.7 /22s per day, it could then rise to 22.1 /22s per day 18 months after that. Assuming that the policy gets implemented in January 2016 and the allocation rate increases as I've calculated above then RIPE would run out of IPs in May 2019, less than 4 years from now. Assuming all LIRs who have bothered to get their final /22 could get these additional /22s every 18 months then RIPE would run out in of v4 addresses in June 2018, less than 3 years from now. For these reasons I do not support this proposal. [0] - https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-t hree-years-after-reaching-the-last-8 P.S. Apologies if our corporate mail server mangles this email. -- Duncan Scotland Plusnet plc | www.plus.net Tel: 0114 220 0081 Registered Office: Plusnet | The Balance | 2 Pinfold Street | Sheffield | S1 2GU Registered in England no: 3279013 This email and any attachments contains Plusnet information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. From elvis at velea.eu Tue Oct 20 17:49:10 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:49:10 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Hi Remco, On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: > Hi all, > > (no hats) > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need more than the default /22. Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months. > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations already received. I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via the transfer market is really high). - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. > > Remco > > * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > cheers, Elvis >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", >> is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Oct 20 18:17:31 2015 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:17:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5626691B.1000605@tvt-datos.es> Hi, As most of you will know, Im +1 to this proposal. Only one question about 5.1.3 An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the *last allocation* if the following conditions are met: Last allocation in general or from RIPE NCC? Kind Regards, El 20/10/2015 a las 14:46, Marco Schmidt escribi?: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 20 20:00:02 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:00:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: > It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need > more than the default /22. what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're out, ...?" remco said it well. the last /8 policy is designed so children born after this apocalypse have a few drops of milk to carry them through to where they can try to subsist on hard food. randy From ripe at liopen.fr Tue Oct 20 20:15:29 2015 From: ripe at liopen.fr (Denis Fondras) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:15:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> > what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're > out, ...?" > Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Oct 20 20:29:03 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:29:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144E2B@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144E2B@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> Message-ID: <818A67F8-E577-4FCB-BBA7-48BAC7AF60A0@rfc1035.com> On 20 Oct 2015, at 16:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in artificially shortening this period. +100 From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Oct 20 20:31:11 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:31:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Message-ID: This policy proposal is a Very Bad Idea. I oppose it. The arguments presented in support of this proposal make no sense. IMO 2015-05 is harmful and not in the best short- or long-term interests of the RIPE community. There may be a case for making an LIR's final IPv4 allocation larger than a /22. However that position is not yet backed up by any supporting data and would need to go in another policy proposal anyway. I hope the WG kills 2015-05. From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Oct 20 21:03:39 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:03:39 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5626900B.5070207@ip-broker.uk> Hi, I also oppose the policy and see no sense in coming with such proposal today. I have seen many good points and I would like to express my opinions on the pros/cons arguments from the proposal: PROs: - The RIPE NCC has the strictest policy of allocations from the remaining IPv4 address pool. All of the other RIRs allow more than a single /22 per member as long as enough address space is available. I would not care of what happens in other regions and the "enough" is always relative. -36 months after the activation of the ?last /8 policy?, the RIPE NCC still had more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8 mostly due to address space being recovered and re-allocated by IANA. Exactly, if IANA would not have recover and re-allocate IPv4 resources to RIPE, then almost half of the last /8 would have been gone. There's no guarantee that IANA will keep supply RIPE's available pool so the 99% figure is totally wrong to be used in this context. - In a number of markets, not being able to provide at least a single IPv4 address per customer prevents members from performing, regardless of the ample availability of IPv6 address space. The large telcos need to perform and they need huge IPv4 resources, should we be concerned of their performance ? - Faster depletion of the free IPv4 pool may force the adoption of IPv6 on certain members. Not really. As we have seen, every country that has relatively large IPv6 adoption rate it's just because of a single dominant provider, the move to IPv6 will be driven by large telcos not the small ones and they would not be influenced in any way by this policy change. - LIRs that opened after 14 September 2012 can only have a /22 allocated by the RIPE NCC as per the current policy, which gives them a disadvantage compared to older LIRs that were able to obtain at least a /21 regardless of their needs. Here I agree, the last /8 policy should have given a /21 to each LIR, but that should have been done at that time based on the fact that previously a /21 was allocated by default and it would have been fair to use the same "unit". However if IANA would not have given RIPE IPs, today we would have exhausted the last /8 (by allocating /21s). So I think giving a /22 was a very good idea at the time and doubling today the allocation would make us hit the bottom probably in less than a couple of years. We have proven that we are unable to predict the future. So, let's not suppose that things will be nice and IPv4 will not be needed in 5 years and let's leave theese drops of milk for the future children. As I mentioned I don't agree that hitting the bottom of last /8 pool will help IPv6 deployment. It's driven by the large telcos and if a new entrant would not be able to get a few IPv4 resources from RIPE, they would only have to buy from the ones that sit on the resources so it can only help prices to increase and make it harder for a new entrant to start a business. Ciprian On 10/20/2015 9:31 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > This policy proposal is a Very Bad Idea. I oppose it. > > The arguments presented in support of this proposal make no sense. IMO 2015-05 is harmful and not in the best short- or long-term interests of the RIPE community. > > There may be a case for making an LIR's final IPv4 allocation larger than a /22. However that position is not yet backed up by any supporting data and would need to go in another policy proposal anyway. > > I hope the WG kills 2015-05. > > From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 21:29:22 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:29:22 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi Remco, > > On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > (no hats) > > > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy > looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as > intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of > establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives > for IPv4 address space. > We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few > presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this > topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members > registered after 2012 need more than the default /22. Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return. Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as well. At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own onramp to the IPv4 internet. > Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a > similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. > > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space > probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely > not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 > is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool > at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the > foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long > as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that > tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work > with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months. > A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already. > > > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time > could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a > legal mess. > Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? > This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to > it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations > already received. > It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation takes a dim view. > I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those > that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more > space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via > the transfer market is really high). > - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please > share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. > Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition. Best, Remco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Oct 20 21:35:14 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:35:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, remco van mook wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:49 PM Elvis Daniel Velea > wrote: > >> Hi Remco, >> >> On 10/20/15 5:27 PM, Remco van Mook wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > (no hats) >> > >> > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy >> looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as >> intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of >> establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives >> for IPv4 address space. >> We started this discussion at least one year ago. We had a few >> presentations at RIPE Meetings and there were a few discussions on this >> topic on the mailing list. It was obvious that many of the new members >> registered after 2012 need more than the default /22. > > > Doesn't everyone? There's a reason the minimum allocation size pre-runout > was never smaller than a /21. As said, the purpose of final /8 is *not* to > keep doing business as usual - those days are over and are never to return. > Adding additional discontiguous prefixes form the final /8 pool to existing > LIRs, aside from being bad engineering, does not provide a scalable > solution; at the end of the race you now have two separate /22s and as you > managed to run out of the first one, you'll run out of the second one as > well. At the same time it's one less company that is able to get their own > onramp to the IPv4 internet. > > >> Additionally, there are a couple other RIRs (APNIC, LACNIC) that have a >> similar policy and it seems to be working just fine. >> > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space >> probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely >> not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 >> is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool >> at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the >> foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long >> as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that >> tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. >> Well, a /22 every 18 months may be helpful to those that need to work >> with only 1024 IPs.. That was the signal I received over the past months. >> > > A /22 every 18 months will give 'newish' LIRs (but not the 'newest') a > single extra /22. Come round 2, there will be none to be had. To me, this > looks like an extra final cigarette when you resolved to stop smoking. The > policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the one > allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already. > > >> > >> > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in >> time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in >> a legal mess. >> Can you please detail how it would be argued as being anti-competitive? >> This would apply to *all* members and each member would have access to >> it, provided they have not yet transferred (parts of) the allocations >> already received. >> > > It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or > so. There's another word for companies that keep new entrants out, but I'm > pretty desperate to keep that word out of this discussion. Legislation > takes a dim view. > > >> I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those >> that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more >> space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via >> the transfer market is really high). >> - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please >> share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. >> > > Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of > other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow > additional NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that > gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so > basically, allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and > good for competition. > On the other hand, why not over is over, even a bit v4 is wasted in the end in a world of v6, who cares? > > Best, > > Remco > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Oct 20 21:35:38 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:35:38 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: <5626978A.9050700@ip-broker.uk> >> I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those >> that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more >> space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via >> the transfer market is really high). >> - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please >> share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. >> > > Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other > reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional > NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets > RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, > allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for > competition. > I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the "justified need" was never something objective, it was easy to manipulate. We should just say goodbye to needs period and stick with one bread each so there's enough for everyone. Ciprian From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Tue Oct 20 21:41:00 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:41:00 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <5626978A.9050700@ip-broker.uk> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <5626978A.9050700@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:35 PM Ciprian Nica wrote: > > I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european > telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to > justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the > "justified need" was never something objective, it was easy to > manipulate. We should just say goodbye to needs period and stick with > one bread each so there's enough for everyone. > > I think I was very specific in saying it is a bad idea for a whole bunch of other reasons, but if you want to touch 'additional allocations for LIRs' at all, it would be the one somewhat feasible option. Which is all the more reason why any proposal to this end is a bad idea. Best Remco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgori at wirem.net Tue Oct 20 21:45:10 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:45:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562651BD.50602@infomir.eu> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <562640B0.70804@wirem.net> <1445349590.872003.415279513.0E5485D3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144D77@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> <562651BD.50602@infomir.eu> Message-ID: <562699C6.4000802@wirem.net> Hi, I tought the /8 policy was designed for new entrants. I can't see any new entrant owning a /21 or /20 or /19 or /16.... So well yes, I think there is a slightly difference from one old LIR to another (new entrant) LIR kind regards Riccardo Il 20/10/2015 16:37, Sakun Alexey ha scritto: > Hi! > > I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I > think its not fair. > If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I > think no. > > 20.10.2015 17:07, Dickinson, Ian ?????: >> I am not yet convinced of this proposal in its entirety, but I am >> definitely against there being limitations based on LIR size of >> allocations (or age for that matter). If we are to do this, it should >> be for all LIRs without such limitation (though I might be ok with >> limits if addressing has been transferred from an LIR recently). >> >> An LIR with a /19 can have need. >> An LIR with a /10 equivalent can still have need. >> >> Ian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] >> On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> Sent: 20 October 2015 15:00 >> To: Riccardo Gori; address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal >> (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:25, Riccardo Gori wrote: >>> I would support it but I would add some text as follows >>> >>> 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its >>> registry >>> [...] >> Hi, >> >> This is something that could be done provided there are enough people >> "for" and not many people "against". >> >> Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ? >> >> -- >> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> fr.ccs >> >> Information in this email including any attachments may be >> privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the >> addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the >> personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, >> please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your >> system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use >> or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right >> to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external >> networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky >> International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited >> (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration >> No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. >> 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration >> No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are >> incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered >> office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. >> >> > > -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info at wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info at wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l. via Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From erik at bais.name Tue Oct 20 22:08:31 2015 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:08:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C016129C78D@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> I strongly disagree with the idea behind this policy. One of the reasons is that the current policy allows for future new entrance to have an option to register for a /22 IPv4 to be able to implement their own infrastructure and be able to use CGNAT... If we allowing this policy to be accepted, the last bits of the current pool will be handed out and it will deprive future (hosting)companies of any chance into the market. Although I seriously like the suggestion of Randy to allocate a /16 to me, based on the letter B in my family name, in order to just be done with it the final scraps, it doesn't do any justice to what is currently in policy. There is always a reason to be found why someone could argue that $member with certain size .. will require additional (free) IPv4 ... But unless we are going to discriminate about 85% of the current members .. or 100% of the future members ... This is not going to be a fair solution moving forward on this path . It isn't difficult to come up with a policy that will distribute the remaining IPv4 within a month ... Who cares about fair distribution anyway .. The difficult part is to plan ahead ... see beyond our own direct need and hope that we will not come to a point where we will hand out the IPv4. It is the goal of this AP-WG to come up with sustainable policies for our service region ... I fail to see this change in policy meet any of the above stated points.. I think we should stop this policy and this line of thinking asap. Regards, Erik Bais From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 20 23:02:55 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:02:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> Message-ID: >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >> out, ...?" > Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good. please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity. randy From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 23:18:35 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:18:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> Message-ID: <1445375915.125640.415707409.58EF7F63@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote: > please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including > smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity. And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No. In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even imagine.... -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 23:41:20 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:41:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: <1445377280.131520.415711969.7E5E7B43@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 21:29, remco van mook wrote: > The policy text was and is unambiguous, you knew you were only getting the > one allocation, there should be no surprises there. Stop smoking already. Which seemed right as long as there was a "needs requirement" and I belived (many people still do) that it was taken seriously. It also seemed right until you woke up 30 months later with more than one /8 in the free pool. For many people also seemed right as long as they were not aware that piles of unused v4 blocks will go "on the market", including those allocated via "last /8 policy". That looks like too much. > It's anti-competitive to the people who are looking to sign up in 2018 or It's also anti-competitive to keep out people who are looking to sign up in 2021. All that time you just kept in the dark corner other people that already signed up (after 09/2012, but not only). > Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other > reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional > NEEDS BASED allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets > RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, > allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for > competition. Returned ? After everything has been done to promote the address-space market ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Oct 20 23:44:00 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 22:44:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <1445375915.125640.415707409.58EF7F63@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> <1445375915.125640.415707409.58EF7F63@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <2E36501B-4497-47A7-94E1-4DA95DCA75D8@rfc1035.com> On 20 Oct 2015, at 22:18, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote: >> please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including >> smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity. > > And If I do it, do I get some extra space ? No. Yes you do. You get oodles of v6 space: way more than enough to run a network on the model of one IP address (or allocation) per customer. [So what's stopping you? Just go for it!] Applying that model to v4 addresses is no longer tenable or viable and hasn't been for a few years now. Get over it. Besides, there's no RIR policy -- or reason to have one -- which doles out extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6. For some definition of deploy. Feel free to suggest such a policy but please be prepared to back it up with hard data. BTW the "An LIR must have v6 to get their final /22 of v4" policy does not count in this context. > In the meanwhile remaining v4 space goes where most people can't even imagine.... Well there would still be a supply of v4 at the NCC which future generations might be able to exploit when they need to connect their IPv6 nets to any v4-only curiosities which might still be around 30+ years from now. That's the main justification behind the current /8 policy. That policy has consensus support in the RIPE region. And with good reason. If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a convincing argument which shows why the current policy is defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you... From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Oct 20 23:57:27 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:57:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: > what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're > out, ...?" Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. It IS over in ARIN-land (unless 23.128/10 ...). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From danny at danysek.cz Wed Oct 21 00:06:58 2015 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:06:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5626BB02.2070904@danysek.cz> Hello, I'm strongly *against* this proposal. There's no need for change. It's just about plundering - just because others (RIRs) plunder. It's bad strategy in long-term perspective. I see quite often end-users ignoring even (old) RFC 1519 and making requests in style "I need X C-blocks" without any objective reason. And it's LIR's responsibility to streamline such requests. Even running many SSL websites isn't objective for getting more IP addresses in these days (as we have SNI already and old crypto protocols are getting retired), CGN is also there and so on... IPv4 *is* almost gone, and I don't see any logical reason to speedup this to "finally gone" phase. With regards, Daniel On 20.10.2015 14:46, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4233 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Wed Oct 21 00:38:50 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:38:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <2E36501B-4497-47A7-94E1-4DA95DCA75D8@rfc1035.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> <1445375915.125640.415707409.58EF7F63@webmail.messagingengine.com> <2E36501B-4497-47A7-94E1-4DA95DCA75D8@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20151020223850.GK64445@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:44:00PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: >Besides, there's no RIR policy correct >-- or reason to have one -- Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6 services" a good enough reason? It is in my book. It certainly provides a much better reward than having 4 or 5 stars on the RIPEness page. >which doles out extra v4 allocations to LIRs who deploy v6. >If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current >policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here >will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a >convincing argument which shows why the current policy is >defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you... Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that matter. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck From davidm at futureinquestion.net Wed Oct 21 00:40:52 2015 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:40:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5626C2F4.4090703@futureinquestion.net> Dear address-policy-wg, This seems like a bad idea indeed. This proposal suffers from a number of shortcomings and side-effects: - It takes us off-message on IPv6 and creates the illusion that IPv4 address availability is elastic and negotiable. Any relaxation of the last /8 allocation criteria can and will be used in boardrooms throughout the industry to re-prioritise IPv6 deployment back from a need to a want, prolonging the transition process. - We are incapable of reliably forecasting the future, and relaxation of the last /8 allocation criteria will eat into the "buffer space" available to us for reacting to new technologies and unforeseen events (far fetched example: the need to rebuild and renumber large portions of infrastructure following a natural disaster while the status of previously assigned resources is being determined) - The impact of relaxing the allocation criteria in this fashion amounts to "bridge burning" behind the latest entrants to the market. The primary benefactors from this policy would be recent small and mid-sized players at the expense of any future entrants. For larger players, the increased availability will remain insufficient to influence the business case. Firm -1 toward this initiative. The last /8 allocation criteria is there to ensure an orderly transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact we now expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further demonstration of its efficacy. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 20/10/15 16:27, Remco van Mook wrote: > > Hi all, > > (no hats) > > I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. > > For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. > > Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. > > Remco > > * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. > **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > > >> On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", >> is now available for discussion. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 >> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 18 November 2015. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> > From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 21 01:00:55 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151020223850.GK64445@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <20151020181529.GF1368@jigai> <1445375915.125640.415707409.58EF7F63@webmail.messagingengine.com> <2E36501B-4497-47A7-94E1-4DA95DCA75D8@rfc1035.com> <20151020223850.GK64445@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: On 20 Oct 2015, at 23:38, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6 > services" a good enough reason? It is in my book. There's nothing stopping you from writing up and submitting a policy proposal which does that. The reasons for the low levels of IPv6 deployment are many and complex. IMO it's highly improbable for tweaks or special incentives in RIR IPv4 allocation policy could be a significant factor. YMMV. That's probably a discussion for another forum than this list. >> If there's a compelling case to justify overturning current >> policy, it's not being made in 2015-05. I'm sure everyone here >> will be delighted to consider that case when someone presents a >> convincing argument which shows why the current policy is >> defective for the RIPE community as a whole. Over to you... > > Please do not presume to speak for me or "everyone else" for that matter. I'm sorry for presuming that this WG welcomes and develops sound policy proposals. If that's no longer the consensus view of the WG, I apologise. From tore at fud.no Wed Oct 21 07:40:45 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:40:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <5626C2F4.4090703@futureinquestion.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <5626C2F4.4090703@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <20151021074045.0798bb93@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Hi David, * David Monosov > The last /8 allocation criteria is there to ensure an orderly > transition is possible for as long as possible, and the fact we now > expect it to last longer than originally anticipated is further > demonstration of its efficacy. I'm not really certain if we can expect it to last longer than originally anticipated, even. I suppose it depends on what one anticipated in the first place. I anticipated (or hoped, rather) for a duration of about 10 years. The best analysis of its remaining lifetime that I'm aware of is the recently published RIPE Labs article? which suggests a remaining lifetime of approx. ~5? years (and this includes future piecemeal allocations from IANA and expected returns from the membership). [1] https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region-three-years-after-reaching-the-last-8 If accurate, that would mean the total lifetime of the somewhat misleadingly named ?last /8? policy would end up being ~8? years. 1? years less than the 10 I had originally hoped for. There is no doubt that 2015-05 would reduce the remaining life expectancy of the ?last /8? policy even further. Considering that the "last /8" is already expected to last for a shorter time than what I had hoped for, I cannot support 2015-05. Tore From garry at nethinks.com Wed Oct 21 08:14:28 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:14:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <20151021074045.0798bb93@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <5626C2F4.4090703@futureinquestion.net> <20151021074045.0798bb93@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <56272D44.3040703@nethinks.com> Hi, considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup, only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over 1000 right now is definitely a pain!) So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than the /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.: Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22 to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18 months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the IPs most. Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place. I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong) to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall cost or even turning a profit ... -garry From gert at space.net Wed Oct 21 09:24:31 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:24:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <20151020144656.GQ23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <20151021072431.GA70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:56:20PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on > current resource number and age of the LIR. > > E.g. > LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent > Or > First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc. > > I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. This is a nice idea. Some of the extra large LIRs holding a /10 or so today will then just eat up the last /8 in a few days, and we can stop discussing IPv4. Really? 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From LIR at bva.bund.de Wed Oct 21 09:28:10 2015 From: LIR at bva.bund.de (LIR (BIT I 5)) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:28:10 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi, I'm against this proposal. It seems that economic interests are the main reason for that. From my personal point of view: with IPv6 there is a good replacement solution to connect network devices. So there is no need to offer IPv4 addresses in a larger amount from the RIR. Best, Carsten -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 14:47 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ggiannou at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 09:35:23 2015 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:35:23 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56272D44.3040703@nethinks.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <5626C2F4.4090703@futureinquestion.net> <20151021074045.0798bb93@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <56272D44.3040703@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Hi, Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space, I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried to avoid. In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be available to new entrants for the next few years. The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8, is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we shouldn't relax it. For these reasons I don't support this proposal. -- George On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown wrote: > Hi, > > considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in > the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market > - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a > "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would > appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations > for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we > actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if > somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go > to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the > organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier > migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup, > only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over > 1000 right now is definitely a pain!) > > So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than > the /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a > certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.: > > Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22 > to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless > otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for > LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18 > months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less > could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any > remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the > IPs most. > > Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be > entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after > the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place. > > I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the > duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated > guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as > people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR > instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through > their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably > increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong) > to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full > /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's > off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall > cost or even turning a profit ... > > -garry > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poty at iiat.ru Wed Oct 21 09:55:03 2015 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:55:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <38A326B32984534586F211FB04239BF85615D6C6@Win2008R2.office.iiat> Hello, I'm completely agree with Remco. The intentions and goals of this proposal is completely unclear and won't change anything for the better for all members of the Internet community, but prevents the future entrants making their way into the Big Net. And - NO - it won't help to deploy IPv6. I'm against the proposal as a whole. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 5:27 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) Hi all, (no hats) I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space. For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won?t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won?t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we?re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible. Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess. Remco * So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal. **Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6. > On 20 Oct 2015, at 14:46 , Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional > /22 > IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 18 November 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 21 11:41:07 2015 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:41:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <68D05A68-7205-49D8-ADEF-3F8F4120A961@de-cix.net> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE099A@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <68D05A68-7205-49D8-ADEF-3F8F4120A961@de-cix.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:12:40 +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote: > > I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. > (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....) +1 Bonus points to Wolfgang for putting this more concisely than Remco. /Niall From shahin at gharghi.ir Wed Oct 21 12:26:41 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:56:41 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Message-ID: Hello I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. -- Shahin Gharghi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 12:40:58 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:40:58 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > Hello > > I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you > should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the > LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. > If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I > think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. > I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I > think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have > access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or > imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it > now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. > > If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from the market at prices which will be obviously higher. Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 resources. I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. Ciprian Nica From uros at ub330.net Wed Oct 21 13:14:42 2015 From: uros at ub330.net (Uros Gaber) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:14:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Hi, I would support this proposal with some amendments, first there should be a 'top-cap' on how many IPs a LIR can have and still request a new /22 every 18 months - for example if a LIR has an /20 equivalent or more already assigned this LIR could not request new allocation (this has already been pointed out on the list) and I think that there should also be a minimum RIPE free space cap, where if we would reach somewhere in the range of /12 only new LIRs are eligible to get new /22 allocation. This is to get new entrants in the market some more wiggle room against the old players. Sincerely, Uros On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > > Hello > > > > I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you > > should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close > the > > LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. > > If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, > I > > think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. > > I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I > > think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have > > access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? > or > > imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it > > now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. > > > > > > If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. > It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from > the market at prices which will be obviously higher. > > Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new > entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate > according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 > resources. > > I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool > will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and > everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. > > Ciprian Nica > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Wed Oct 21 13:20:31 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:20:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter condition on the transfers, ie that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its registry) On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Uros Gaber wrote: > Hi, > > I would support this proposal with some amendments, first there should be > a 'top-cap' on how many IPs a LIR can have and still request a new /22 > every 18 months - for example if a LIR has an /20 equivalent or more > already assigned this LIR could not request new allocation (this has > already been pointed out on the list) and I think that there should also be > a minimum RIPE free space cap, where if we would reach somewhere in the > range of /12 only new LIRs are eligible to get new /22 allocation. > > This is to get new entrants in the market some more wiggle room against > the old players. > > Sincerely, > Uros > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ciprian Nica > wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote: >> > Hello >> > >> > I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you >> > should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close >> the >> > LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. >> > If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other >> LIRs, I >> > think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. >> > I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I >> > think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have >> > access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? >> or >> > imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it >> > now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. >> > >> > >> >> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. >> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from >> the market at prices which will be obviously higher. >> >> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new >> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate >> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 >> resources. >> >> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool >> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and >> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. >> >> Ciprian Nica >> >> >> > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 13:27:44 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:27:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter > condition on the transfers, ie > > that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in > addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its > registry) So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE. Yes, that would make everyone love this policy. Ciprian From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 13:32:02 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:32:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 12:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > > Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new > entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate > according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 > resources. > Imo the transfer market was a really bad idea. I assume there are many ISPs with lots of unused space just waiting for the prices getting even higher. Why return a free lunch? Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. In addition big ipv4 space holders should be forced to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per year. This way the BIG providers (new and existing) would be forced to act and implement ipv6. And these are the only one able to really drive ipv6 adoption. Corin From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Wed Oct 21 13:33:17 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:33:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for new lirs in future ... Do you love it now ;) ? On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica" wrote: > > > On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > > Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter > > condition on the transfers, ie > > > > that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in > > addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its > > registry) > > So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they > don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE. > > Yes, that would make everyone love this policy. > > Ciprian > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 21 13:34:50 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:34:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> Message-ID: > Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 13:40:20 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:40:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> Message-ID: <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Randy Bush: >> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves > Most probably only for those who make a living out of this transfer business ;) Corin From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:00:59 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:00:59 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> The way you said it was like you were referring to anyone that bought IPs from the market. What you are proposing is impossible to implement and still won't save this policy. It's difficult to find a "better fairness" today and I don't see a way this policy would help anyone except a few small...ish providers. On 10/21/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer > /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in > my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for > new lirs in future ... > Do you love it now ;) ? > On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica" wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: >>> Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter >>> condition on the transfers, ie >>> >>> that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in >>> addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its >>> registry) >> >> So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they >> don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE. >> >> Yes, that would make everyone love this policy. >> >> Ciprian >> >> >> > From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:11:40 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:11:40 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> Message-ID: <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> So it would be ok to sell as long as you don't make a living out of it :) The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the pain on those who really need IPv4 resources. Do you think that UK's DWP would have ever given resources from their /8 to the community if there were no millions to make out of it ? Maybe some would be willing to give the IPs back to the community but usually there are some internal costs to release them. And if you are refering to brokers like me, we are only intermediating transactions, most of us are just creating links between buyers and sellers and assist them to properly complete the transactions. Yes we are making a living out of it but it's for the benefit of both seller and buyer and we don't make the decisions on their behalf. On 10/21/2015 2:40 PM, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Randy Bush: >>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves >> > > Most probably only for those who make a living out of this transfer business ;) > > Corin > From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Wed Oct 21 14:08:12 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:08:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Point taken..Ciprian, however, just because a policy is difficult to police doensnt mean that it is not a valid policy... and i think practical policing options should be considered so that this policy will help isps, without rewarding isps that have perhaps being abusing loopholes. I think this would be helpful in aleviating IP conservation Concerns On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > The way you said it was like you were referring to anyone that bought > IPs from the market. > > What you are proposing is impossible to implement and still won't save > this policy. It's difficult to find a "better fairness" today and I > don't see a way this policy would help anyone except a few small...ish > providers. > > > On 10/21/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > > My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir > +transfer > > /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which > in > > my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for > > new lirs in future ... > > Do you love it now ;) ? > > On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica" wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > >>> Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter > >>> condition on the transfers, ie > >>> > >>> that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in > >>> addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its > >>> registry) > >> > >> So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they > >> don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE. > >> > >> Yes, that would make everyone love this policy. > >> > >> Ciprian > >> > >> > >> > > > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:20:11 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:20:11 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> On 10/21/2015 3:08 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: > Point taken..Ciprian, however, just because a policy is difficult to police > doensnt mean that it is not a valid policy... If it's difficult yes, but in my oppinion it would be impossible. > and i think practical policing options should be considered so that this > policy will help isps, without rewarding isps that have perhaps being > abusing loopholes. I think this would be helpful in aleviating IP > conservation Concerns Well, I've been working for ISPs and took care of the relation with ripe since about year 2000 so I don't think policies can ever be perfect. There will always be some that would find loopholes and exploit them. We should focus on what's really efficient. How to promote IPv6 deployment and how to convince the large operators to take the first steps towards it. According to some recent data (few days ago) that we have, there are 11668 organisations that hold ALLOCATED PA IPv4 resources in RIPE region. The number of LIRs is larger because some of them have already sold the resources so they are no longer relevant. >From theese, the top 1% PA resource holders (117 organisations) have allocations totalling 363,535,872 IPs out of the total 575,180,544 ALLOCATED PA IPs in RIPE region. (that is 63.20%) If the remaining 99% percent would fully deploy IPv6 then the region's average would be at 36.80%, which would not be enough to make us forget about IPv4. Therefore, in my oppinion, this is not a problem that can be solved by the many but by the few top providers. Think about policies that would "drive them to drive us all" towards IPv6 adoption. That would really help. Ciprian From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:40:46 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:40:46 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562785BA.5060901@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> <562785BA.5060901@netskin.com> Message-ID: <562787CE.7010108@ip-broker.uk> > That's exactly my point. The current policy is mostly against new providers (I know many think it's a policy to help > them). What about my previous suggestion, like a policy to force ipv4 space holders to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per > year. Money/ effort involved with the transition is no valid concern against it, because the same would hold true for > the /21 limit for new LIRs. I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6 adoption rate or you have to return 5% from the IPs that were allocated to you before the end of 2006 (so it would be a 10 year frame). Then at the end of 2017 they would need to have 10% IPv6 adoption rate or return 10% of the IPs allocated before the end of 2007 and so on. Something like this would push the "old" ISPs to make the first steps towards IPv6 and would not affect the relatively new entrants whom would not make sense returning 50-100 IPs from their /22. I would support this, although I know it would be very difficult to ask Telefonica to return Orange or Deutsche Telekom return millions of IPs. RIPE NCC is not the police but we can all think of a way to implement this, if the community would support it. Ciprian From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 14:31:54 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:31:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <562785BA.5060901@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:20 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > From theese, the top 1% PA resource holders (117 organisations) have > allocations totalling 363,535,872 IPs out of the total 575,180,544 > ALLOCATED PA IPs in RIPE region. (that is 63.20%) > > If the remaining 99% percent would fully deploy IPv6 then the region's > average would be at 36.80%, which would not be enough to make us forget > about IPv4. > > Therefore, in my oppinion, this is not a problem that can be solved by > the many but by the few top providers. Think about policies that would > "drive them to drive us all" towards IPv6 adoption. That would really help. > That's exactly my point. The current policy is mostly against new providers (I know many think it's a policy to help them). What about my previous suggestion, like a policy to force ipv4 space holders to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per year. Money/ effort involved with the transition is no valid concern against it, because the same would hold true for the /21 limit for new LIRs. Corin From shahin at gharghi.ir Wed Oct 21 14:40:05 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:10:05 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Message-ID: > > > > If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. > It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from > the market at prices which will be obviously higher. > ?And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them? ? > > Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new > entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate > according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 > resources. > ?This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea about how bad the situation is in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. ?? > > I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool > will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and > everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. > > ?I agree with you but at least makes it faster.? -- Shahin Gharghi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Oct 21 14:40:39 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:40:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20151021124039.GF70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:11:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can > control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE > (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the > pain on those who really need IPv4 resources. Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from occuring (people will find ways...) but that *if* a resource is transferred, we must be able to document *where it went*. Since the IPv4 run-out, the primary function of the RIPE NCC has shifted from "hand out IPv4 addresses" to "registry", and this is more important than ever. (Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got for free - yes. But do we want to make money on something by selling under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:49:41 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:49:41 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562787D4.2020800@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <562787D4.2020800@netskin.com> Message-ID: <562789E5.1050906@ip-broker.uk> > Don't get me wrong, but I think we are in some kind of dilemma here. Many knew this would become a free lunch, so why > vote against it? Policies are adopted through consensus so we can asume that at the time of adoption any policy was what (most of) the community wanted. > "With great power comes great responsibility.". Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial > requirements for the assignment are no longer met. RIPE should audit and enforce it - just start by grabbing all > listings on the transfer market *g*. Yes, I'm waiting for Santa Claus, too. Unfortunately our capitalist society is mostly profit-driven so we have to live with it whether we like it or not. Go to Daimler and tell them that. Will they return any of the 16,7 million IPs that they hold (53.0.0.0/8) ? I remember (I hoep I'm not wrong) that RIPE NCC has contacted UK DWP a few years ago about their /8 and they said they can't return any of the IPs. This year they started to monetize a few million IPs already. > It's not against your business, it's against the current policies. The policies are adopted by the community and represent the best decisions that could have been taken at that time. Of course things changes and sometimes policies need to be changed. However I don't think the current proposal would bring any good change. Ciprian From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 14:51:58 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:51:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:11 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can > control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE > (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the > pain on those who really need IPv4 resources. > Don't get me wrong, but I think we are in some kind of dilemma here. Many knew this would become a free lunch, so why vote against it? > Do you think that UK's DWP would have ever given resources from their /8 > to the community if there were no millions to make out of it ? Maybe > some would be willing to give the IPs back to the community but usually > there are some internal costs to release them. > "With great power comes great responsibility.". Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial requirements for the assignment are no longer met. RIPE should audit and enforce it - just start by grabbing all listings on the transfer market *g*. > And if you are refering to brokers like me, we are only intermediating > transactions, most of us are just creating links between buyers and > sellers and assist them to properly complete the transactions. Yes we > are making a living out of it but it's for the benefit of both seller > and buyer and we don't make the decisions on their behalf. > It's not against your business, it's against the current policies. Corin From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 14:58:47 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:58:47 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56278C07.1080604@ip-broker.uk> >> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. >> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from >> the market at prices which will be obviously higher. >> > > ?And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot > of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think > that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them? RIPE NCC is doing a good job in my opinion shouting every time that people need to move to IPv6 and that there's no more IPv4, while preserving enough resources to "feed" newcomers for the following years. That's the right way to do things, we should not focus on what happens with RIPE's pool. That's just a small reserve and the era when millions of IPs were handed out for free is gone. >> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new >> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate >> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 >> resources. >> > > ?This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea > about how bad the situation > is > in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE > IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. Not really, Iran has imported 2,174,464 IPs out of which 1,221,120 came from Romania. I know a few things about the situation over there but if the local rules/laws are wrong then it's up to you to change them. >> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool >> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and >> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. >> >> > ?I agree with you but at least makes it faster.? Who would benefit from that ? Not your country for sure. The market prices for IPv4 resources can only go up once RIPE's pool is depleted. The ones that would benefit are those that sit on piles of IPv4 and push/wait for prices to go up as they are not satisfied with current profits. I would benefit indirectly also but it's not my purpose to drive prices up. Ciprian From corin.langosch at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 14:40:52 2015 From: corin.langosch at netskin.com (Corin Langosch) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:40:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <562787D4.2020800@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:11 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can > control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE > (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the > pain on those who really need IPv4 resources. > Don't get me wrong, but I think we are in some kind of dilemma here. Many knew this would become a free lunch, so why vote against it? > Do you think that UK's DWP would have ever given resources from their /8 > to the community if there were no millions to make out of it ? Maybe > some would be willing to give the IPs back to the community but usually > there are some internal costs to release them. > "With great power comes great responsibility.". Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial requirements for the assignment are no longer met. RIPE should audit and enforce it - just start by grabbing all listings on the transfer market *g*. > And if you are refering to brokers like me, we are only intermediating > transactions, most of us are just creating links between buyers and > sellers and assist them to properly complete the transactions. Yes we > are making a living out of it but it's for the benefit of both seller > and buyer and we don't make the decisions on their behalf. > It's not against your business, it's against the current policies. Corin From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 15:05:44 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:05:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562787CE.7010108@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> <562785BA.5060901@netskin.com> <562787CE.7010108@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <56278DA8.6050900@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica: > > I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set > some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6 > adoption rate or you have to return 5% from the IPs that were allocated > to you before the end of 2006 (so it would be a 10 year frame). Then at > the end of 2017 they would need to have 10% IPv6 adoption rate or return > 10% of the IPs allocated before the end of 2007 and so on. > What about a new policy proposal for that? Please let me know if you'd like to work on one together. > Something like this would push the "old" ISPs to make the first steps > towards IPv6 and would not affect the relatively new entrants whom would > not make sense returning 50-100 IPs from their /22. > The last /22 (or even /21, which everybody can get then easily) shouldn't be affected. > I would support this, although I know it would be very difficult to ask > Telefonica to return Orange or Deutsche Telekom return millions of IPs. > RIPE NCC is not the police but we can all think of a way to implement > this, if the community would support it. > I'm no lawyer, but from a technical point of view it shouldn't be a problem for RIPE to disconnect them. Any I'm quite sure they'll act before that happens. Corin From gert at space.net Wed Oct 21 15:06:51 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:06:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> Message-ID: <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:51:58PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote: > Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial > requirements for the assignment are no longer met. These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 21 15:13:57 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:13:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:40, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 15:15:32 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:15:32 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56278DA8.6050900@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <56277E7B.3030201@ip-broker.uk> <562782FB.1080800@ip-broker.uk> <562785BA.5060901@netskin.com> <562787CE.7010108@ip-broker.uk> <56278DA8.6050900@netskin.com> Message-ID: <56278FF4.1070206@ip-broker.uk> On 10/21/2015 4:05 PM, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica: >> >> I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set >> some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6 >> adoption rate or you have to return 5% from the IPs that were allocated >> to you before the end of 2006 (so it would be a 10 year frame). Then at >> the end of 2017 they would need to have 10% IPv6 adoption rate or return >> 10% of the IPs allocated before the end of 2007 and so on. >> > > What about a new policy proposal for that? Please let me know if you'd like to work on one together. If there is support for the idea, then we can come up with a proposal after making a thorough analysis and think of some efficient percentages, terms, etc. >> Something like this would push the "old" ISPs to make the first steps >> towards IPv6 and would not affect the relatively new entrants whom would >> not make sense returning 50-100 IPs from their /22. >> > > The last /22 (or even /21, which everybody can get then easily) shouldn't be affected. The idea is to promote IPv6 adoption but if we (the community) would get back enough resources then we can come up with policies to increase the "minimum guaranteed IPv4 slice" that gets out to everyone. >> I would support this, although I know it would be very difficult to ask >> Telefonica to return Orange or Deutsche Telekom return millions of IPs. >> RIPE NCC is not the police but we can all think of a way to implement >> this, if the community would support it. >> > > I'm no lawyer, but from a technical point of view it shouldn't be a problem for RIPE to disconnect them. Any I'm quite > sure they'll act before that happens. RIPE NCC can only do what RIPE decides but obviously it has to be legal so we'll have to consult on all aspects. Ciprian From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 15:17:08 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:17:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151021124039.GF70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <20151021124039.GF70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <56279054.7010609@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Gert Doering: > > Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from > occuring (people will find ways...) > Why not? RIPE is the official register and has to act on each transfer. Of course some might "lease" their space instead, but this puts a significant risk on the user/ customer. I assume many users wouldn't want to take that risk and so the majority of this business is blocked. Together with an enforced return of some percent of assigned ipv4 space every year this would be very effective to push ipv6 adoption significantly. > > (Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got > for free - yes. But do we want to make money on something by selling > under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?) > That's why transfer/ selling should be completely forbidden. Corin From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 15:18:44 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:18:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly reflected in the registry. If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking about my chinese "friend") Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price. Ciprian On 10/21/2015 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:51:58PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote: >> Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial >> requirements for the assignment are no longer met. > > These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such > a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return > of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go > out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 15:25:08 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:25:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <56279234.40906@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Gert Doering: > > These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such > a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return > of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go > out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything. > Sorry, if I mixed it up. I really think it's time for such a policy then. Corin From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 15:35:02 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:35:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56279234.40906@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <56279234.40906@netskin.com> Message-ID: <56279486.1000200@ip-broker.uk> This would make an important change to the current situation and we should think it very thorough. In less than a month it's RIPE 71 in Bucharest. Let's discuss this further on the mailing list and at RIPE71 and if there's support for the idea, we'll collect your opinions and come up with a feasible proposal. Ciprian On 10/21/2015 4:25 PM, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Gert Doering: >> >> These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such >> a policy for allocations. Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return >> of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go >> out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything. >> > > Sorry, if I mixed it up. I really think it's time for such a policy then. > > Corin > From shahin at gharghi.ir Wed Oct 21 15:49:48 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:19:48 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Message-ID: > > > > > > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. > > What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > ?Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. ? > > > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > ?RIPE NCC can ease the process.? ?People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. ? ?You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them. ? -- Shahin Gharghi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Oct 21 15:56:00 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:56:00 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > >> >> >> > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. >> >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? >> > > ?Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. > I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why Iran companies can't announce IPv6. > ? > > >> >> > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. >> >> Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. >> > > ?RIPE NCC can ease the process.? > > ?People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. > Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of > community and they can see the proposals from their own view. ? > > ?You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the > biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we > have to look at them. > > Really ? We are all concerned about IPv6 future here and you think we should focus on the IPv4 future ? Didn't we all agree that IPv4 is (should be) dead ? Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region. Ciprian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stolpe at resilans.se Wed Oct 21 15:57:03 2015 From: stolpe at resilans.se (Daniel Stolpe) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:57:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, remco van mook wrote: > I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those > that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more > space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via > the transfer market is really high). > - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please > share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended. > > > Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS BASED > allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that would > sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition. ? Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last /8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been treated differently. But now this seems all overtaken by events and we have left what we have left. The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and the broker market as the only market. I do not support this policy. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 21 16:13:47 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:13:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35B6409F-B43E-4717-8D3D-F87B8CD662A4@rfc1035.com> On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi wrote: >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > > ?Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs. >> ?Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > > ?RIPE NCC can ease the process.? I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which does that. > ?People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. ? ?You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them. Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. From sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net Wed Oct 21 17:04:09 2015 From: sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net (Sylvain Vallerot) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:04:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144E2B@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE5B144E2B@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> Message-ID: <5627A969.7030603@opdop.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi all, I do not support this proposal. On 20/10/2015 17:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco > and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that > allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in > artificially shortening this period. Agreed, this last being the main reason to oppose the proposal but I agree with many other reasons exposed, and in particular - - LIRs created after /8 policy did have the information to take decisions and if they did not manage to cope with this, I do not consider future LIR creation should be compromised to please them, - - uniform /22 distribution would be quite unfair and result in a big waste IMHO A much more interesting proposal to ease access of small op?rators (not to say LIRs because LIRs are just distributors in my mind) would be to have the Ripe to regulate the transfer market via anonymization + fixed pricing (have it equivalent to a LIR creation cost for a /22) or IP garbage collection. Best regards, Sylvain - -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coop?rative Opdop - Soci?t? Coop?rative d'Inter?t Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC r?seau geeknode #opdop - t?l: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYnqWkACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGMnAEAjQUpMTKLmCzHLSAPSQIgFw4C ubb4Sbgo5p3YkUhYV7gA/iLWKAHUsQrKCLWJcwDZdpsKOy3wYJTgCDfMOyQy2Xgd =DGf8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sander at steffann.nl Wed Oct 21 17:48:06 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:48:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Hi, > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN het volgende geschreven: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >> out, ...?" > > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint... The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants. But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. Cheers, Sander From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 17:53:51 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:53:51 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages here during all day and increase noise. 21 ???. 2015 ?. 18:48 ???????????? "Sander Steffann" ???????: > Hi, > > > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < > ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven: > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: > >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're > >> out, ...?" > > > > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even > > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. > > The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants > are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as > "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. > What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a > "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To > be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. > delusional) viewpoint... > > The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this > special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the > results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help > people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give > addresses to new entrants. > > But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only > discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. > > Cheers, > Sander > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed Oct 21 17:56:53 2015 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:56:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: <35B6409F-B43E-4717-8D3D-F87B8CD662A4@rfc1035.com> References: <35B6409F-B43E-4717-8D3D-F87B8CD662A4@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <5627B5C5.4000205@cc.univie.ac.at> > I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus on a policy > proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. I don't think any government would be impressed by a RIPE Community's "policy" to reconsider political or embargo measures. My feeling is that it needs other mechanisms to potentially make a difference, by parties having a genuine interest and not being legally bound to comply with current regulations. Just my 2c, -ww144 From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Oct 21 17:56:51 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:56:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: > On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi, > >> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN het volgende geschreven: >> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: >>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >>> out, ...?" >> >> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even >> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. > > The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint... +1 > > The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants. How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need to think about an answer. > > But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. > > Cheers, > Sander > > From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Oct 21 18:00:20 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:00:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> <1445378247.136693.415732441.52EE9707@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <785D7864-45A9-4A20-B003-F61D13A7F629@anytimechinese.com> Hi > On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:53 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages here during all day and increase noise. > I won't call it noise, a mailing list are there for discussion things about certain topic, if you are not interested, you can unsubscribe. > 21 ???. 2015 ?. 18:48 ???????????? "Sander Steffann" ???????: >> Hi, >> >> > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN het volgende geschreven: >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >> >> out, ...?" >> > >> > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even >> > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land. >> >> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint... >> >> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants. >> >> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances. >> >> Cheers, >> Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahin at gharghi.ir Wed Oct 21 18:39:07 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 20:09:07 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Message-ID: > > I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why > Iran companies can't announce IPv6. > > ?You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open, brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions.? Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the > largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region. > ?People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this case to ease transfers) So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more.? > I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach > consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions > problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas > about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal > which does that. > > ?I'll do my best to submit a proposal. ? > Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops > address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the > community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current > policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as > everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs > in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. > > ?I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts,? ?I mean even this /22's can help them. I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG. ? -- Shahin Gharghi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Wed Oct 21 22:57:26 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:57:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <56265258.3090604@inex.ie> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56265258.3090604@inex.ie> Message-ID: <1445461046.3952060.416726073.6342BFFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:40, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Is this to be interpreted as: > > a) the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry > > or > > b) the LIR has not registered any IPv4 address space transfer out of its > registry? > > Option b is enforceable but largely pointless. Not really. Unless you assume that 100% of LIRs have evil intentions. > Option a is unenforceable because if the LIR chooses not to register the > transfer, then there is no way for the RIPE NCC to conclusively prove > that a transfer has happened and thus to deny the new allocation. > > This proposal as it stands will put selective pressure on LIRs to implement > hidden transfer agreements and then to tell lies to the RIPE NCC in order > to justify getting more IP address space. This is not good stewardship > of resources. If the transfer source does not register the transfer, the transfer destination (the one that pays) may not agree - it requires much more legal paperwork in order to ensure that ressources somehow "belong" to the one that pays. Pretty much like selling a company but not registering anywhere the sale (ok, in that case the registration info may not be public). Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock even if the superblock is not announced. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From gert at space.net Wed Oct 21 22:58:00 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:58:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56279054.7010609@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <20151021124039.GF70452@Space.Net> <56279054.7010609@netskin.com> Message-ID: <20151021205800.GJ70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:17:08PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Gert Doering: > > > > Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from > > occuring (people will find ways...) > > Why not? RIPE is the official register and has to act on each transfer. > Of course some might "lease" their space instead, [..] You already described one possible way. Others exist, but I'm not going to try to list all of them. > > (Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got > > for free - yes. But do we want to make money on something by selling > > under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?) > > That's why transfer/ selling should be completely forbidden. If you try to forbid it, prices will go up, and the registry "which network is where?" suffers as a consequence. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed Oct 21 23:00:18 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:00:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:18:44PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't > care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly > reflected in the registry. > > If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I > think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking > about my chinese "friend") > > Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we > are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back > some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price. I could point out that *this* would very much be "retroactively applying policy"... (And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better focus on making good IPv6 policies instead) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From noc at netskin.com Wed Oct 21 23:19:56 2015 From: noc at netskin.com (Netskin NOC) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:19:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5628017C.6030801@netskin.com> Am 21.10.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Gert Doering: > > (And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why > the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've > discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better > focus on making good IPv6 policies instead) > The point is to speedup ipv6 adoption of the big ISPs by enforcing the return of existing ipv4 allocations over the next few years (tbd, like 10% of the allocated ipv4 space of each LIR per year). As a minor side effect everyone could get an /21 without any problems (which most probably wouldn't then be needed anymore anyway). Corin From saeed at ipm.ir Thu Oct 22 07:57:37 2015 From: saeed at ipm.ir (Saeed Khademi) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:27:37 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran Message-ID: <9E5C1BC34DD14B7FB35E076CC257F1CB@Saeed> Hello everybody, I read all messages in this regard, and I think conversation is going off the road. One individual, or one LIR may talk about their own opinion regarding the proposal. Please do not extent the talk to all LIRs from Iran or any other region. and I don't think that it is wise to stamp a technical proposal with political issues. Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:43 PM To: Shahin Gharghi Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi wrote: >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > > ?Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs. >> ?Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > > ?RIPE NCC can ease the process.I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus > on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I > doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how > this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which > does that. > ?People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. > Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of > community and they can see the proposals from their own view. ? ?You are > talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user > of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to > look at them. Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Oct 22 08:07:54 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:07:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <1445494074.1251079.417060105.2DF03228@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:20, Tom Smyth wrote: > Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter > condition on the transfers, ie > > that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry, (in > addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its > registry) You have a point but: - not sure people will support it better with this condition added - there may be legitimate cases where you managed to have a inbound transfer and you still need adresses. Those being said, stricter criteria is under investigation. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Oct 22 08:16:01 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:16:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:33, Tom Smyth wrote: > My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer > /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in > my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for > new lirs in future ... > Do you love it now ;) ? The issue of "multiple LIRs abuse" is much more complicated. If it isn't solved it's because it's too complex. If we take into account mergers and acquisitions (which is a policy in its own) things get even more complex. That part is more related to business processes than anything else. But I do agree that it's something that should be fixed at some point. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Oct 22 08:20:09 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:20:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> Message-ID: <1445494809.1254464.417064945.2EA65FDB@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:34, Randy Bush wrote: > > Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves Encouraging and stimulating it OTOH, could have been skipped/avoided. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From randy at psg.com Thu Oct 22 08:27:36 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:27:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <1445494809.1254464.417064945.2EA65FDB@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <1445494809.1254464.417064945.2EA65FDB@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: >>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves > Encouraging and stimulating it OTOH, could have been skipped/avoided. the true believers tried to pretend they could hold back the water for many years. some are still in denial. there is an ipv4 address space market. the rirs are effectively out of the free source of integers they rent to us. and world peace could use some work too. this ain't our ancestors' internet. we need to get over it. dealing with current reality is hard enough without fantasy and wishful thinking in the way. randy From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Thu Oct 22 09:48:35 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:48:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: I think it would be reasonable that if an entity has merged from another lir... they have already recieved one or more /22s over and above what ripe intended. So these entities have already benefited from gaining additional ips So it would be fair to exclude such lirs from getting another /22 under this policy proposal I would imagine that the merged lir option is straightforward to police ? Furthermore Is there any way straightforward way to determine the maximum impact of this policy if every lir in ripe was to request an additional /22 ? On 22 Oct 2015 07:16, "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" < ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:33, Tom Smyth wrote: > > My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir > +transfer > > /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which > in > > my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for > > new lirs in future ... > > Do you love it now ;) ? > > The issue of "multiple LIRs abuse" is much more complicated. If it isn't > solved it's because it's too complex. If we take into account mergers > and acquisitions (which is a policy in its own) things get even more > complex. That part is more related to business processes than anything > else. > But I do agree that it's something that should be fixed at some point. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > fr.ccs > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Oct 22 10:52:53 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:52:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: <9E5C1BC34DD14B7FB35E076CC257F1CB@Saeed> References: <9E5C1BC34DD14B7FB35E076CC257F1CB@Saeed> Message-ID: <20151022085253.GM70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:27:37AM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote: > Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is > managing it's address space? Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist... (And indeed, it helps understanding why someone argues in favour or against a proposal if he or she explains the personal background - the RIPE service region is so large and so many different countries that something which is totally obvious for some needs explaining for others. So it's also good practice to try to listen what other people are saying, and trying to understand what they say :-) ) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From saeed at ipm.ir Thu Oct 22 11:25:06 2015 From: saeed at ipm.ir (Saeed Khademi) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:55:06 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: <20151022085253.GM70452@Space.Net> References: <9E5C1BC34DD14B7FB35E076CC257F1CB@Saeed> <20151022085253.GM70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <198E1F62485146288CEE42338F11C35F@Saeed> >Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 >cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist... That is not true: - From technical point of view, there is no problem. And there are some IPV6 BGP routing in Iran ( for some years now ) being announced world wide. - And about 10 months ago, Minister of I.C.T ( Information and Telecommunication Technologies Ministry ) announced that we need to have IPV6 as soon as possible. Although they have their concerns about it. My main point in my previous message was that, anyone may say their opinion, but no one should talk for all LIRs or even a country. Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:22 PM To: Saeed Khademi Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran From radu at pengooin.net Thu Oct 22 11:54:46 2015 From: radu at pengooin.net (Radu Gheorghiu) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:54:46 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran In-Reply-To: <20151022085253.GM70452@Space.Net> References: <9E5C1BC34DD14B7FB35E076CC257F1CB@Saeed> <20151022085253.GM70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <5628B266.5050209@pengooin.net> Hello, On 10/22/2015 11:52 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 09:27:37AM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote: >> Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is >> managing it's address space? > Since people are argueing that this proposal is necessary because IPv6 > cannot be deployed in Iran, some relation seem to exist... I don't see the connection between IPv6 not being available ..and the need of IPv4. If these two protocols would be interchangeable I would understand, but given the circumstances I think there are two distinct needs: the need of IPv4 and the need of IPv6. > > (And indeed, it helps understanding why someone argues in favour or > against a proposal if he or she explains the personal background - the > RIPE service region is so large and so many different countries that > something which is totally obvious for some needs explaining for others. > So it's also good practice to try to listen what other people are saying, > and trying to understand what they say :-) ) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair From nick at inex.ie Thu Oct 22 13:14:55 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:14:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: <1445461046.3952060.416726073.6342BFFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56265258.3090604@inex.ie> <1445461046.3952060.416726073.6342BFFC@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <5628C52F.3000402@inex.ie> On 21/10/2015 21:57, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Another thing, how do you define a "hidden transfer" ? Some LIRs do have > assignments from other LIRs that they announce in the global table with > their own AS. Those IPs still "belong" to the LIR having the superblock > even if the superblock is not announced. you need to address these questions to the authors of the proposal because as it stands, it's ambiguous and open to a wide variety of interpretations. Nick From sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net Thu Oct 22 22:30:28 2015 From: sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net (Sylvain Vallerot) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:30:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Good evening, On 22/10/2015 09:48, Tom Smyth wrote: > I think it would be reasonable that if an entity has merged from > another lir... they have already recieved one or more /22s over and > above what ripe intended. So these entities have already benefited > from gaining additional ips > > So it would be fair to exclude such lirs from getting another /22 > under this policy proposal I don't, because there is a confusion here between the LIR and the End User, the LIR being limited to a /22 whereas several End Users having the same LIR would be legitimate to have, say, a /24. So, some level of need-based criteria should not have been abandonned here and the trivial case where a LIR is a single entity that uses all of its allocations for itself should be questionned, since the PA and assignment system is clearly made to distinguish LIR and operator and is supposed to be the normal case. Therefore, creating and merging LIRs can be a very legitimate way to allow new entities to get a minimal IPv4 space, regarding the spirit of the last /8 policiy. Also, policies should not be studied from the only point of view of a LIR but also from the End User's viewpoint, which could be a much more legitimate approach. Best regards, S. Vallerot - -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coop?rative Opdop - Soci?t? Coop?rative d'Inter?t Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC r?seau geeknode #opdop - t?l: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYpR2QACgkQJBGsD8mtnRFbcwD9FYxfB1xUzWiJzIljySVPOJMi g5za8bCmCAvlFzzUJv4A/jKSpFup9xH/J+XlqNgN1ZuS6f1/4j9f8pfFO/kYr43X =K42N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm Fri Oct 23 13:23:07 2015 From: ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:23:07 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> Message-ID: <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> Hello Everybuddy, I propose we stop assigning IPv4 addresses, like ARIN did, even if we still have some in the pool. That way the whole policy issue will just go away. Having no policy is the best policy. Yours insincerely, -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Fri Oct 23 15:08:03 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:08:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: Dear chairs of the address policy working group, While I applaud your willingness to provide a platform to any and all policy proposal regardless of its merit, I must now strongly encourage you to start reconsidering this approach or to start actively moderating discussions on this mailing list. I'm appalled by the level of discussion, the ad hom attacks, fallacious argumentation (see http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html for an exhaustive list), a lack of constructive attitude from both the proposers and respondents and the almost absent attempts to keep discussions focused. Given that this email list is the foundation of our fabled community-driven bottom-up policy process - and frankly, one of our few arguments to keep top-down decision makers out of numbers policy, I expect some standards to be maintained, and in my opinion they have been slipping, badly. Hoping for short term improvement, Remco (no hats) (and no Aleksi, I'm sure you had no ill intentions in your email, it was just the final straw for me) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidm at futureinquestion.net Fri Oct 23 16:04:41 2015 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:04:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> On 23/10/15 13:23, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > -- > Aleksi Suhonen > > () ascii ribbon campaign > /\ support plain text e-mail Hi, time traveller! Welcome to the future! I'm sure you're excited and eager to discover what has changed over the past 17 years. You probably find today's Internet a confusing place, much different from the one you left behind. From your e-mail, I deduct that you are completely puzzled by the current top-down approach to Internet governance and find yourself wishing to return to the grass-root pseudo-anarchy of yesteryear with which you're familiar. The evolution of the Internet may seem puzzling to you at first. Regulated, accountable, available universally and provided in some countries to all citizens as a basic human right, this always-on global network became an integral part of the world's economy. It is relied upon by billions for both personal and professional use, communication and entertainment, commerce and dating. To ease your transition, here are a few highlights of what has taken place in the time you skipped: CPU speeds have grown by a factor of x50; while your desktop is quite likely powered by an AMD K6-2 CPU running at 266Mhz, by 2003 a desktop CPU model ran at speeds of up to 2400Mhz, and today, it would not be uncommon to own a desktop CPU which runs at upwards of 3000Mhz and offers up to 4 computation cores, such as Intel's 6th generation i7 CPU. For simplicity, you can think of it as a 12000Mhz CPU available in both desktops and laptops (you may know them as "notebooks"). If you stop by an electronics retailer and pick up a new computer, however, you're probably going to find yourself somewhat disappointed. It will not feel considerably faster than the one you've left behind. This is because we've also increased the amount of abstraction on which we rely quite considerably. We no longer write any assembly, and rarely write C or C++. Instead, we rely on interpreted computer languages, or languages which are just-in-time bytecode compiled to be executed by a virtual machine. This may sound a little wasteful, but you'll learn to love it. It also makes optimization someone else's problem, and *everyone* loves that! You'll be happy to hear that this computational excess unleashed a flurry of new programming languages which made programming easier than ever. Programming no longer requires any understanding of the underlying hardware architecture on which the program will be executed, and more people are writing software now than ever before! By the way, you remember JavaScript? You may have used it to play a sound or make an image move when a mouse was hovered over a specific section of that GeoCities homepage you've built with Netscape Navigator Gold? It's grown quite a bit in popularity, and today it's used to write most software, large and small. >From demanding and scalable server software to games, there's hardly a problem node.js isn't an ideal tool for solving! Storage costs have decreased and capacity has increased by more than x1000 as well! You probably own a 6.4GB drive for which you've paid about 330$. Today, that kind of money would buy you a 6TB drive, easily! You'll still be constantly running out of space, though. High definition video became commonplace, photography has been replaced with digital photography and stills are now taken with digital camera sensors capable of capturing tens of millions of pixels. Internet connectivity speeds have really boomed, increasing by as much as x2000! While you're probably used to a 56Kbps dial-up modem, today, for the same money you paid for your dial-up account, you can get 100Mbps+ service on DOCSIS 3.0 over a coaxial cable plant operated by a cable TV provider. Cable TV, by the way, isn't so hot any more. Now, all of these exciting changes bring us back to the subject of Internet governance. The RIPE NCC of your days operated not much different than, say, a wedding gift registry. It was a convenient arrangement that helped you avoid embarrassing yourself by showing up to the party with the exact same waffle iron someone else has already bought for the lucky couple. Adding and removing things to and from the registry was quite easy, and generally, everyone was quite happy if the registry was consulted at all. As the number of people and devices connected to the Internet increased, and most of these people and devices remained connected all the time, it became apparent that IPv4 addresses will soon run out. Initially, the reaction was that of total disbelief. Surely, 4 billion is a very large number that's almost indistinguishable from infinity? This layman argument resulted in the Internet community spending about a decade between 2000 and 2010 pretending that the problem does not, in fact, exist. In the meanwhile, a few people worked to introduce a new protocol known as IPv6, which aimed to both solve a wide range of problems and expand the number of addresses available. They spent about a decade being largely ignored and laughed at, and were repeatedly told by the Internet community that their new protocol changes too many things which work, and is too different from the IPv4 protocol to understand or implement. After they have, in despair, removed most of these features and made IPv6 look and work almost exactly like IPv4, the same Internet community that previously told them that IPv6 changed too many things began complaining that the IPv6 protocol is insufficiently revolutionary and does not address some of the core challenges which would justify the large expense of a transition. Unfortunately, by that time IPv4 addresses largely ran out and a transition was necessary anyway. In 2007, an Irishman introduced a RIPE policy proposal that became known as policy 2007-01, it granted RIPE NCC a wide range of powers which turned it from a beloved wedding cake registry to something akin to a regulator. RIPE NCC was bestowed with considerable new powers, which it proceeded to consolidate by aggressively reaching out to all resource holders of IPv4 addresses and AS numbers, binding them contractually directly under its control. The RIPE community then passed emergency measures to prevent the complete exhaustion of IPv4 addresses, and emphasized accountability and conservation on all fronts, as well as the need to transition to IPv6. As I write this, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 isn't nearly complete. The IPv4 address pool is almost completely depleted. New solutions keep being proposed that range from the delusional to the discriminatory. Welcome to the future! On, and by the way, the ASCII ribbon campaign officially ended in June, 2013. We lost. Apparently, plain text e-mail just lacked enough "pizzazz". -- Best regards and success on your journey, David Monosov From phessler at theapt.org Fri Oct 23 16:10:52 2015 From: phessler at theapt.org (Peter Hessler) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:10:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <20151023141052.GG23525@gir.theapt.org> Commenting on a signature is beyond off-topic, please stop. From frederic at placenet.org Fri Oct 23 16:14:30 2015 From: frederic at placenet.org (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYw==?=) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:14:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <562A40C6.20608@placenet.org> Le 23/10/2015 16:04, David Monosov a ?crit : > On 23/10/15 13:23, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > >> -- >> Aleksi Suhonen >> >> () ascii ribbon campaign >> /\ support plain text e-mail > > > > As I write this, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 isn't nearly complete. The > IPv4 address pool is almost completely depleted. New solutions keep being > proposed that range from the delusional to the discriminatory. Welcome to the > future! Nobody wants Ipv6, but only IPV4 CGN and ASN based routing. :) bst regards. > On, and by the way, the ASCII ribbon campaign officially ended in June, 2013. We > lost. Apparently, plain text e-mail just lacked enough "pizzazz". > > -- > Best regards and success on your journey, > > David Monosov > From ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm Fri Oct 23 16:24:00 2015 From: ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:24:00 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <562A4300.1000304@ssd.axu.tm> Hello, On 10/23/2015 04:08 PM, remco van mook wrote: > I'm appalled by the level of discussion, the ad hom attacks, fallacious > argumentation, a lack of constructive attitude from both the > proposers and respondents and the almost absent attempts to keep > discussions focused. > Hoping for short term improvement, > (and no Aleksi, I'm sure you had no ill intentions in your email, it was > just the final straw for me) I apologize for my indiscretion and I promise to never post anything on this PDP if nobody else does either. I will consider the PDP closed because there can clearly be no consensus on it, given how far apart the two factions are, and this PDP can thus never be accepted. Yours sincerely this time, -- +358 4567 02048 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy `What I need,' shouted Ford, by way of clarifying his previous remarks, `is a strong drink and a peer-group.' -- Douglas Adams, Life the Universe and Everything From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Oct 23 16:24:29 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:24:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A40C6.20608@placenet.org> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> <562A40C6.20608@placenet.org> Message-ID: Just a little reminder, can we keep on the topic of this policy... (I agree with remco, and I suggested before as well, certain basic common sense of merderation are appreciated here) On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Fr?d?ric wrote: > > > Le 23/10/2015 16:04, David Monosov a ?crit : > > On 23/10/15 13:23, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > > > >> -- > >> Aleksi Suhonen > >> > >> () ascii ribbon campaign > >> /\ support plain text e-mail > > > > > > > > As I write this, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 isn't nearly complete. > The > > IPv4 address pool is almost completely depleted. New solutions keep being > > proposed that range from the delusional to the discriminatory. Welcome > to the > > future! > > Nobody wants Ipv6, but only IPV4 CGN and ASN based routing. > > :) > > bst regards. > > > > On, and by the way, the ASCII ribbon campaign officially ended in June, > 2013. We > > lost. Apparently, plain text e-mail just lacked enough "pizzazz". > > > > -- > > Best regards and success on your journey, > > > > David Monosov > > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidm at futureinquestion.net Fri Oct 23 16:26:31 2015 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:26:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151023141052.GG23525@gir.theapt.org> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <562A3E79.10207@futureinquestion.net> <20151023141052.GG23525@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: <562A4397.7080906@futureinquestion.net> Hi, While I'm sure this subtle point could easily get lost within the text, the primary intention was not so much to comment on a signature, but rather as a light hearted Friday-friendly manner of pointing out that the discussion has strayed in all directions and the positioning on the proposal and related issues is quite extreme and not conductive toward a consensus. A point which, I must admit, you have expressed considerably more concisely than myself. Apologies for the inconvenience. -- Sincerely yours, David Monosov On 23/10/15 16:10, Peter Hessler wrote: > Commenting on a signature is beyond off-topic, please stop. > From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Fri Oct 23 16:51:46 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:51:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> Message-ID: Hello Sylvain, The policy is centered around LIRs and granting additional IP space, If a Lir has merged "legitimately" with another lir, they have benefited from the addtitional space, from the merger, and it would be legitimate to say that the Merged Lir is getting the same space as a Lir that didnt merge with anyone else. I would be infavour of this policy if there are constraints, so that it does not give ip space to Lirs that used other mechanisims to increase their ip entitlements, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Good evening, On 22/10/2015 09:48, Tom Smyth wrote: > I think it would be reasonable that if an entity has merged from > another lir... they have already recieved one or more /22s over and > above what ripe intended. So these entities have already benefited > from gaining additional ips > > So it would be fair to exclude such lirs from getting another /22 > under this policy proposal I don't, because there is a confusion here between the LIR and the End User, the LIR being limited to a /22 whereas several End Users having the same LIR would be legitimate to have, say, a /24. So, some level of need-based criteria should not have been abandonned here and the trivial case where a LIR is a single entity that uses all of its allocations for itself should be questionned, since the PA and assignment system is clearly made to distinguish LIR and operator and is supposed to be the normal case. Therefore, creating and merging LIRs can be a very legitimate way to allow new entities to get a minimal IPv4 space, regarding the spirit of the last /8 policiy. Also, policies should not be studied from the only point of view of a LIR but also from the End User's viewpoint, which could be a much more legitimate approach. Best regards, S. Vallerot - -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coop?rative Opdop - Soci?t? Coop?rative d'Inter?t Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC r?seau geeknode #opdop - t?l: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYpR2QACgkQJBGsD8mtnRFbcwD9FYxfB1xUzWiJzIljySVPOJMi g5za8bCmCAvlFzzUJv4A/jKSpFup9xH/J+XlqNgN1ZuS6f1/4j9f8pfFO/kYr43X =K42N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net Fri Oct 23 17:30:53 2015 From: sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net (Sylvain Vallerot) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:30:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> Message-ID: <562A52AD.8020605@opdop.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/10/2015 16:51, Tom Smyth wrote: > The policy is centered around LIRs Which is the basis of your further deductions, but I disagree with this first statement. I do not means it is not the case, nor deeply understood as this, I just disagree on the relevance of this lecture regarding to the spirit and goal of the last /8 policy. LIRs are delegated some authority from the RIR (that is delegated authority from ARIN), LIRs are not those who are supposed to use the ressources in the End. So distribution of ressources to LIRs is a wrong perspective, the goal being to have ressources available to End Users, the last /8 that limits available ressources to a /22 per LIR would be better deserving their goal by fixing some ressource quantity to be available to End Users. Of course, this is difficult to do, and most participants here seem not to consider the difference between LIR and operator/end user. So according to the last /8 policy goal (spirit if not letter), LIRs merging to get End Users to be able to access some little ressources is perfectly legitimate. We as a cooperative LIR do no use ressources for ourselves, but for End Users only, so as a LIR, being limited to a /22 is not relevant to us, because it just has the effect to limit the number of End Users that can have access to a minimal part of the IPv4 last bits to bootstrap. Is it the goal of this policy ? No it is not. So to allow new comers to emerge (with a single /24 sometimes) the only possible way today is (several of) them to create a new LIR together and later merge it to ours. And this does perfect sense if last /8 policy is there to allow newcomers to emerge. You thinking as LIR = End User having a /22 means a /22 per newcomer. When you have in mind that a /22 is a potential of 4 x /24 end users instead, then you deserve the last /8 policy 4 times as much. Maybe limiting the M&A to PAs containing space already assigned to enough independent (maybe even routable, with an ASN ?) operators, and garanteed to remain so for quite a long time) would be fine. Best regards, Sylvain - -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coop?rative Opdop - Soci?t? Coop?rative d'Inter?t Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC r?seau geeknode #opdop - t?l: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYqUq0ACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGnowEAkJ9DTr65tpRap+4tTLTfO+jK 2wXLItRWhxFWnw2t3U4A/j6d7Hb3nJKSQN72lSGCsEHq0QSxSFSIXPL9KvxGbIo8 =N+ff -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Fri Oct 23 17:47:49 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:47:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <562A52AD.8020605@opdop.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A52AD.8020605@opdop.net> Message-ID: Sylvain, I wasnt lecturing, just outlining my postion, the point of the policy is that is is a form of reprieve to allocate more Ipv4 resources to Lirs, and I think that any Lir as I have said before that have benefited from merging with another lir to get Ip address space to assign to end users or other wise, shouldnt be allowed to benefit from this policy. I hope in this context you understand my position Thanks Tom Smyth On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Sylvain Vallerot < sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 23/10/2015 16:51, Tom Smyth wrote: > > The policy is centered around LIRs > > Which is the basis of your further deductions, but I disagree with this > first statement. I do not means it is not the case, nor deeply understood > as this, I just disagree on the relevance of this lecture regarding to > the spirit and goal of the last /8 policy. > > LIRs are delegated some authority from the RIR (that is delegated authority > from ARIN), LIRs are not those who are supposed to use the ressources in > the End. So distribution of ressources to LIRs is a wrong perspective, the > goal being to have ressources available to End Users, the last /8 that > limits > available ressources to a /22 per LIR would be better deserving their goal > by fixing some ressource quantity to be available to End Users. Of course, > this is difficult to do, and most participants here seem not to consider > the difference between LIR and operator/end user. > > So according to the last /8 policy goal (spirit if not letter), LIRs > merging to get End Users to be able to access some little ressources is > perfectly legitimate. > > We as a cooperative LIR do no use ressources for ourselves, but for End > Users > only, so as a LIR, being limited to a /22 is not relevant to us, because it > just has the effect to limit the number of End Users that can have access > to > a minimal part of the IPv4 last bits to bootstrap. Is it the goal of this > policy ? No it is not. > > So to allow new comers to emerge (with a single /24 sometimes) the only > possible way today is (several of) them to create a new LIR together and > later merge it to ours. And this does perfect sense if last /8 policy is > there to allow newcomers to emerge. > > You thinking as LIR = End User having a /22 means a /22 per newcomer. When > you have in mind that a /22 is a potential of 4 x /24 end users instead, > then you deserve the last /8 policy 4 times as much. > > Maybe limiting the M&A to PAs containing space already assigned to enough > independent (maybe even routable, with an ASN ?) operators, and garanteed > to > remain so for quite a long time) would be fine. > > Best regards, > Sylvain > > - -- > http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coop?rative > Opdop - Soci?t? Coop?rative d'Inter?t Collectif sous forme de SARL > sur IRC r?seau geeknode #opdop - t?l: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlYqUq0ACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGnowEAkJ9DTr65tpRap+4tTLTfO+jK > 2wXLItRWhxFWnw2t3U4A/j6d7Hb3nJKSQN72lSGCsEHq0QSxSFSIXPL9KvxGbIo8 > =N+ff > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Fri Oct 23 18:11:05 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:11:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <20151023161105.GB70452@Space.Net> Hi Remco, On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:08:03PM +0000, remco van mook wrote: > While I applaud your willingness to provide a platform to any and all > policy proposal regardless of its merit, I must now strongly encourage you > to start reconsidering this approach or to start actively moderating > discussions on this mailing list. As much as I value your wisdom and contributions, *this* we totally cannot do - that is, decide "by order of the chair" which proposals have merit or not, or moderate the list (except in extreme cases). We do our best to focus the discussions and do call people to order if needed - OTOH, there are so many aspects to this particular topic (like: is there a real problem with IPv6 in Iran or not?) that it's not easy to declare something to be totally off-topic - and in particular, the argument "just stop wasting all our time on IPv4!" has been brought up before, and I can well see the merits of *this*. So, what do you want us to do? Disallow any discussions that touch IPv4, or have operational / monetary impact on people's networks? This would harm our open process much more than the occasional discussion that strays quite far from the original topic. (But anyway - Remco is right of course that some of the "contributions" to this discussions are *so* totally off-topic that even a very liberal interpretation won't find any useful content in there - like, signature flames going to the whole list - so, please refrain from adding extra noise to the discussion. You know who you are...) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Oct 23 23:06:58 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:06:58 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 meta-discussion In-Reply-To: <20151023161105.GB70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <20151023161105.GB70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: < meta-discussion > > As much as I value your wisdom and contributions, *this* we totally > cannot do - that is, decide "by order of the chair" which proposals > have merit or not, or moderate the list (except in extreme cases). thanks. i often tend to agree with remco, but not on this one. it's is the openness of the discussion (and yes, some of it is distasteful, welcome to mailing lists) which legitimizes the alleged bottom up coordination (i loathe the word governance). but i do take to heart remco's desire for a bit more civility, and will try to keep my side of the street a bit cleaner. randy From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 12:56:17 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 12:56:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <20151023161105.GB70452@Space.Net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562776B0.4060706@ip-broker.uk> <1445494561.1253535.417061785.54AEFFF2@webmail.messagingengine.com> <56294764.5060709@opdop.net> <562A189B.2020109@ssd.axu.tm> <20151023161105.GB70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <13207937-A4B0-498C-82DC-BFADE45E5E28@gmail.com> Dear Gert, Sander and others who responded either in private or in public, (more meta discussion) > On 23 Oct 2015, at 18:11 , Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi Remco, > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:08:03PM +0000, remco van mook wrote: >> While I applaud your willingness to provide a platform to any and all >> policy proposal regardless of its merit, I must now strongly encourage you >> to start reconsidering this approach or to start actively moderating >> discussions on this mailing list. > > As much as I value your wisdom and contributions, *this* we totally > cannot do - that is, decide "by order of the chair" which proposals > have merit or not, or moderate the list (except in extreme cases). > I think you already do - not consciously, maybe. And for years that has worked to mostly everyone?s satisfaction. What I do note is a general unwillingness to have any discussion that?s not part of the PDP (for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, you can find the most recent version here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642 ). I understand that the PDP also very much functions as a safety net for the chairs as long as they follow it closely, but at the same time the chairs have been selected by the community itself because of their capabilities to lead a working group - so please, lead. That?s all I?m asking. Some people remarked that it wasn?t my place to make these comments, but given a lack of other people to stand up and say something, I consider it my obligation to this community that I?ve participated in for quite some time now to do get up and draw a line in the sand. The standards of discourse on this list (and I do appreciate a good bit of banter as much as everybody else) are causing people to either stay out, or walk out. How you fix this is up to you, but it is something that needs fixing, quite urgently. I would have left this list already if it wasn?t for some morbid sense of obligation. The argument ?this is a mailing list, deal with it? would hold merit if the list had no formal purpose. As is repeated at the beginning of every single AP session at a RIPE meeting, this is the place where policy gets made, and consensus is reached. And nowhere else. > We do our best to focus the discussions and do call people to order if > needed - OTOH, there are so many aspects to this particular topic (like: > is there a real problem with IPv6 in Iran or not?) that it's not easy > to declare something to be totally off-topic - and in particular, the > argument "just stop wasting all our time on IPv4!" has been brought up > before, and I can well see the merits of *this*. > I wasn?t talking about this topic in particular, although any discussion about how the final scraps of IPv4 are handled seems to bring out the worst in people. I?m very interested to hear about corner cases within our region where certain pieces of community policy are disallowed by local regulation or legislation, but the answer to those is not to then rewrite policy for the entire region. The RIPE region consists of, give or take, 76 countries and there?s no way we could accommodate every quirk or oddity. As for ?Let?s stop talking about IPv4? - I think that?s too sweeping a statement to agree with. The focus, in my opinion, should have moved away from IPv4 a while ago but it?s impossible to tell if there?s not some corner case we might have forgotten about, Stating ?Let?s only talk about IPv6 from now on? on the other hand als creates an interesting conflict with another working group of the RIPE community. Maybe we should think about a reshuffle? > So, what do you want us to do? Disallow any discussions that touch > IPv4, or have operational / monetary impact on people's networks? This > would harm our open process much more than the occasional discussion > that strays quite far from the original topic. > As David remarked in his (otherwise very off-topic but brilliant post) we?re no longer in 1998. The impact of what happens in here is also a lot bigger: a potential multi-billion euro market for IPv4 transfers was created in here, other policies that reached consensus cost the industry as a whole tens of millions of euros in order to comply. I don?t think it?s too much to ask to have some observed rules around how discussions are being held in here. IETF working groups have a concept of drafts that are accepted by the working group to work on, that would be something to consider. RIPE meetings have a code of conduct these days, that?s maybe another thing. > > (But anyway - Remco is right of course that some of the "contributions" > to this discussions are *so* totally off-topic that even a very liberal > interpretation won't find any useful content in there - like, signature > flames going to the whole list - so, please refrain from adding extra > noise to the discussion. You know who you are?) Amen. Kind regards, Remco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Sun Oct 25 17:49:19 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:49:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56263E7B.9040200@bytemark.co.uk> Message-ID: <1445791759.2462669.419681577.38954742@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 15:40, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > Here's a thought experiment: > > Set aside a /12 pool for this particular purpose. I would call this an "almost good" idea. "Almost", because /12 is too small. I would upgrade it to a "good idea" if it were a /11 or even a /10. Or at least "all recovered space since 2014-07-01", which is 1x /12 + 1x /13 + 1x /14 + whatever will follow (current estimate : 1 x /15). However, this will also de facto create an APNIC-style policy with 2 pools, which doesn't seem very popular around. But at the point where we are .... -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Sun Oct 25 18:29:53 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:29:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <56266276.2070404@velea.eu> Message-ID: <1445794193.3210444.419703577.539EFF93@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 14:57, Daniel Stolpe wrote: > Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: > that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last > /8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been > treated differently. Not sure that separating pools would have made things easier to accept. Some people gave me their opinions about this issue, and at that time (~6 weeks ago) there was only 1 (one) voice in favour of having separate pools. But again, if this makes it easier to pass, having distinct pools (newcomers & further allocations, 185/8 and recovered, ...) is an option for me as a proposer. Personally, I'm even in favour. > The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and > the broker market as the only market. We will get there anyway. Worst things is that we (RIPE community) kickstarted this market too early. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From dcunningham at airspeed.ie Tue Oct 27 14:12:52 2015 From: dcunningham at airspeed.ie (Donal Cunningham) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:12:52 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria) In-Reply-To: References: <562637BE.7060505@ripe.net> <92417261-8EE6-42AC-8DC1-15F6256F95F0@akamai.com> <679694A32AB94046931C676BEF4BA8B83DFE099A@UK30S005EXS05.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <68D05A68-7205-49D8-ADEF-3F8F4120A961@de-cix.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:12:40 +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote: > > I am against this proposal - with no particular hat on. > (it reads like "we know we run out - so lets give it more speed so we run out faster"....) +1 - I too am against this proposal. D. -- AirSpeed Telecom Support support at airspeed.ie : (01) 428 7530 From pietro.asproni at mens.it Thu Oct 29 13:50:51 2015 From: pietro.asproni at mens.it (Pietro Asproni) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:50:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria Message-ID: <1446123051.3626.3.camel@gollum-pc.mens.private> Dear All,, proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks Regards, Pietro Asproni PA7-RIPE From alessiogenova1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 14:01:41 2015 From: alessiogenova1 at gmail.com (Alessio Genova) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:01:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Message-ID: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrislist at de-punkt.de Thu Oct 29 14:44:13 2015 From: chrislist at de-punkt.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:44:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria In-Reply-To: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> Message-ID: <563222AD.5070003@de-punkt.de> Hello, > There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a > lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . > > I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or > should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really > needs them. > > proposal appropriate and acceptable. > Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck From chrislist at de-punkt.de Thu Oct 29 14:47:21 2015 From: chrislist at de-punkt.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:47:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria In-Reply-To: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> Message-ID: <56322369.50008@de-punkt.de> Hello, > There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a > lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . > > I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or > should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really > needs them. > > proposal appropriate and acceptable. > Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck From sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net Thu Oct 29 15:20:58 2015 From: sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net (Sylvain Vallerot) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:20:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <5628017C.6030801@netskin.com> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> <5628017C.6030801@netskin.com> Message-ID: <56322B4A.7080007@opdop.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/10/2015 23:19, Netskin NOC wrote: > The point is to speedup ipv6 adoption of the big ISPs by enforcing > the return of existing ipv4 allocations over the next few years (tbd, > like 10% of the allocated ipv4 space of each LIR per year). As a > minor side effect everyone could get an /21 without any problems > (which most probably wouldn't then be needed anymore anyway). I agree, it is a much better approach that 2015-5 : make the IPv4 dissappear OK but the large LIRs reserves should be drained at the same time. Unfortunately I suspect we lost the power to do so when we adopted the catastrophic "no need" policy, since big LIRs would easily declare fake assignments now to fill and reserve their already routed but yet unsed allocations. We would have to restore needs-based policy first. Best regards, Sylvain -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYyK0oACgkQJBGsD8mtnRHaawD9EH+bBRnGt3xmGh9/pT370qdn hBChWiYaePdb3VZjDiwBAIQPKJD89dYihIG3CiXST4nk0hqHlaRLic2na0R2jRVM =Pyla -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From danny at danysek.cz Thu Oct 29 15:29:22 2015 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:29:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> Message-ID: <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> Hello, connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on the marked cappable doing that job. The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as long as possible. Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just attempt to pillage in short-term... With regards, Daniel On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote: > Hello, > > we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we > became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. > > From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today > every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made > from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs > (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to > every our customer. > > > > There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a > lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . > > I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or > should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really > needs them. > > > > Best Regards > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4233 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From frederic at placenet.org Thu Oct 29 15:31:37 2015 From: frederic at placenet.org (=?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYw==?=) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:31:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> Message-ID: <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> Le 29/10/2015 15:29, Daniel Suchy a ?crit : > Hello, > connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network > design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are > using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're > mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part > of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on > the marked cappable doing that job. ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing. bst regards. > > The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a > workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long > period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should > have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as > long as possible. > > Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just > attempt to pillage in short-term... > > With regards, > Daniel > > > On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote: >> Hello, >> >> we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we >> became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >> >> From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today >> every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made >> from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs >> (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to >> every our customer. >> >> >> >> There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a >> lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . >> >> I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or >> should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really >> needs them. >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> From gert at space.net Thu Oct 29 15:38:36 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:38:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> Message-ID: <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:31:37PM +0100, Fr?d?ric wrote: > Le 29/10/2015 15:29, Daniel Suchy a ?crit : > > Hello, > > connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network > > design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are > > using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're > > mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part > > of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on > > the marked cappable doing that job. > > ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing. Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jan at go6.si Thu Oct 29 16:07:32 2015 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:07:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> Message-ID: <56323634.9090405@go6.si> On 29/10/15 15:31, Fr?d?ric wrote: > ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing. go beyond-IP then :) ITU called it NGN back in 2001 ;) http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com13/ipexpert/future/72271_pp7.ppt Cheers, Jan From jan at go6.si Thu Oct 29 16:11:31 2015 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:11:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> Message-ID: <56323723.20308@go6.si> On 29/10/15 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote: > Hello, > > we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we > became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. > > From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today > every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made > from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs > (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to > every our customer. Hey, It's a bit of a pain, is it? > > There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a > lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . > > I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or > should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really > needs them. We have been through this exercise numerous times already. Forget about it, IPv4 is over. Done. No more. Ex protocol. Use what you have, deploy IPv6 and try to figure out the figures if it's worth buying legacy numbers on the market. Cheers, Jan From arash_mpc at parsun.com Thu Oct 29 16:20:34 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:20:34 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria In-Reply-To: <56322369.50008@de-punkt.de> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322369.50008@de-punkt.de> Message-ID: <009601d1125d$5e211560$1a634020$@parsun.com> I support 2015-5, I don?t see any benefit to migrate to IPv6 at the moment (and in short term) and prefer to use IPv4 as long as I can. As I'm not looking at last /22 as a migration tool to IPv6, receiving more IPv4 from RIPE NCC looks fine to me. Arash -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Kunz Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:47 AM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria Hello, > There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving > a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . > > I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or > should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really > needs them. > > proposal appropriate and acceptable. > Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck From nick at inex.ie Thu Oct 29 18:59:44 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:59:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote: > Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 > shortage is totally off-topic here. Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)" to this list? Nick From gert at space.net Thu Oct 29 19:07:29 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:07:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20151029180729.GV70452@Space.Net> Hi On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:59:44PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote: > > Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 > > shortage is totally off-topic here. > > Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take existing > IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)" to this list? Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have to be a separate proposal. For the particular proposal under discussion (2015-05), which has a very specific focus, this topic is out of scope. (OTOH, threading was broken anyway, and the Subject: was lost anyway, so technically it's totally unclear whether any comments in this sub-thread applied to a particular proposal or not - so: when commenting about a proposal, please keep the number in the Subject: or clearly mention in the text of the mail what your comments refer to...) And, indeed, let's focus on the particular proposals on the table. thanks, 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Oct 29 21:04:29 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:04:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria In-Reply-To: <563222AD.5070003@de-punkt.de> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <563222AD.5070003@de-punkt.de> Message-ID: <1446149069.704412.423965601.0E2F56E7@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 14:44, Christopher Kunz wrote: > It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for > IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your > main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started > from scratch only a few years ago. While this has beed understood and accepted by some small players, deploying IPv6 doesn't spare you of situations like: - residential users that will cancel and make you bad press because their PS4 doesn't work. Not with CGN, and for the moment not over v6(*) - business users that will just not sign with you if you cannot provide them their block of X public v4 addresses. Be happy if they don't explicitely ask you to disable IPv6. > I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. And once you have IPv6 as standard for everyone, but public dedicated v4 either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Oct 29 21:27:03 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:27:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <56322B4A.7080007@opdop.net> References: <56276BBA.2090905@ip-broker.uk> <562777B2.6000801@netskin.com> <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> <5628017C.6030801@netskin.com> <56322B4A.7080007@opdop.net> Message-ID: <1446150423.709656.423974849.293B4B3A@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 15:20, Sylvain Vallerot wrote: > Unfortunately I suspect we lost the power to do so when we adopted the catastrophic > "no need" policy, since big LIRs would easily declare fake assignments now to fill > and reserve their already routed but yet unsed allocations. We would have to restore > needs-based policy first. Things are a little bit more complex than that, but globally you are right, and we should have been more vocal years ago, when nonsense started to develop (no need, no new PI, PI trasnfer, ...). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From gert at space.net Thu Oct 29 22:38:07 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:38:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 In-Reply-To: <1446150423.709656.423974849.293B4B3A@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <562779A4.30006@netskin.com> <562780FC.2080805@ip-broker.uk> <56278A6E.6090204@netskin.com> <20151021130651.GG70452@Space.Net> <562790B4.9040602@ip-broker.uk> <20151021210018.GK70452@Space.Net> <5628017C.6030801@netskin.com> <56322B4A.7080007@opdop.net> <1446150423.709656.423974849.293B4B3A@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <20151029213807.GX70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 09:27:03PM +0100, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Things are a little bit more complex than that, but globally you are > right, and we should have been more vocal years ago, when nonsense > started to develop (no need, no new PI, PI trasnfer, ...). The "nonsense", as you call it, has been the result of long discussions on this very mailing list, leading to community consensus that this is what we want our policy to be. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the changes, it would be useful to read up the discussions in the archives. It does not suit the proposer of a policy change very well to call earlier policy changes "nonsense". 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at fud.no Fri Oct 30 08:33:46 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:33:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <20151029180729.GV70452@Space.Net> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> <20151029180729.GV70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20151030083346.56554c5c@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> * Gert Doering > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:59:44PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome > > > IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here. > > > > Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take > > existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to > > me)" to this list? > > Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up > with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have > to be a separate proposal. Might we instead inist that the ?let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)? crowd actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect? If it turns out they're unwilling to do so, we could call them to order due to the purpose of this list isn't to be a wailing wall for people to vent about wanting more IPv4 addresses. If on the other hand a proposal does get submitted, we could discuss it on its merits. (After the proposal has gone the way I believe it would, it would be appropriate to reconsider Nick's suggestion.) Tore From gert at space.net Fri Oct 30 08:48:01 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:48:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <20151030083346.56554c5c@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> <20151029180729.GV70452@Space.Net> <20151030083346.56554c5c@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <20151030074801.GA70452@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > > Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up > > with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have > > to be a separate proposal. > > Might we instead inist that the ?let's make the RIPE NCC take existing > IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)? crowd > actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect? I'm willing to offer 10-15 minutes of air time at the upcoming RIPE meeting to "pre-discuss" the viability of this - but given how the discussion about 2015-05 went, I'd rather not start the formal policy machine unless we see significant support for going there. So, if one of you wants to come up with a specific approach that would be implementable for the RIPE NCC and wants to present his ideas at the next RIPE meeting, let me know. Emphasis on "actually implementable". (Of course this is valid for every new policy idea that needs a pre-check - this is what the meetings are really good for: get quick feedback from the group) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mir at ripe.net Fri Oct 30 09:49:13 2015 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:49:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC Membership Statistics Q3 2015 In-Reply-To: <56332E4E.60206@ripe.net> References: <56332E4E.60206@ripe.net> Message-ID: <56332F09.70007@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We look at the RIPE NCC in terms of growth, geographic distribution and IPv6 deployment. We find that recent RIPE policy changes have had an impact on membership statistics and development trends. Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ripe-ncc-membership-statistics-q3-2015 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From alessiogenova1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 15:09:01 2015 From: alessiogenova1 at gmail.com (Alessio Genova) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:09:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] R: address-policy-wg Message-ID: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> >It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago. > >Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business. > >Regards, > >--ck Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we?ll make it. Vice versa I?m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Da: Alessio Genova [mailto:alessiogenova1 at gmail.com] Inviato: gioved? 29 ottobre 2015 14:02 A: 'address-policy-wg at ripe.net' Oggetto: address-policy-wg Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10? / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From radu at pengooin.net Fri Oct 30 12:13:58 2015 From: radu at pengooin.net (Radu Gheorghiu) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:13:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] R: address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> References: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> Message-ID: <563350F6.1070103@pengooin.net> On 10/29/2015 04:09 PM, Alessio Genova wrote: > > >It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There > is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main > addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started > from >scratch only a few years ago. > > > > > >Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I > think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of > business. > > > > > >Regards, > > > > > >--ck > > Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in > Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, > but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. > > So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 > giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we?ll make it. > > Vice versa I?m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public > IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who > really needs them. > If some entity has more resources than needed, the entity is free to donate or sell those resources. If your problem is that you don't have enough IP addresses, explore the options and pick one. Changing the policy in order to take away resources from someone else sounds like what communists did decades ago in certain countries, by taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". In short, your problem is you don't have enough IPv4. There is IPv4 available on the free market. Go buy some. Problem solved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danny at danysek.cz Fri Oct 30 12:15:05 2015 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:15:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] R: address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> References: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> Message-ID: <56335139.1030409@danysek.cz> On 29.10.2015 15:09, Alessio Genova wrote: > Vice versa I?m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public > IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who > really needs them. In case of stopping of CGN/NAT usage in incumbent's networks (which're holding large allocations), they *WILL* need them like you. Everyone needs them, but IPv4 address space is exhausted - that's reality and these days you *must* deploy NAT for end-users. I don't see any way of *avoiding* IP market. There will be always some ways to bypass policy. In worst case we'll have inaccurate registry as consequence of strict regulations avoiding transfers etc. This approach never worked. With regards, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4233 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From sander at steffann.nl Fri Oct 30 15:42:12 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:42:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> References: <02ae01d11253$5d4e4090$17eac1b0$@com> Message-ID: Hi, > Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. > So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we?ll make it. It's off-topic on this list, but just to give you a sample of the solutions you might deploy: Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877 Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6333 Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7597 Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7599 An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6264 As you can see you are not the only one who needs to run a network with a shortage of IPv4 addresses, and solutions have been designed. There are some well-known examples that use these technologies. T-Mobile runs NAT64+464XLAT, UPC runs DS-Lite etc. Implementations are available on the market. Running an ISP on just IPv4 isn't possible anymore (basic math) so you'll have to learn to deal with that, just like everybody else. This mailing list is not the place to argue that point. It is clear that you need *some* IPv4 to be able to talk to others that only talk IPv4, which is why we have the final-/8 policy. Being able to run/expand a network (especially ISP networks) completely on public IPv4 without NAT and/or IPv6 has ended years ago, and no policy change is ever going to be able to change that. People that are still in denial and want to discuss how to run their networks on IPv4-only without having anything to do with IPv6 should start an IPv4 working group... Cheers, Sander From randy at psg.com Sat Oct 31 02:35:06 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:35:06 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg In-Reply-To: <20151030074801.GA70452@Space.Net> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <56322D42.4050808@danysek.cz> <56322DC9.8030108@placenet.org> <20151029143836.GQ70452@Space.Net> <56325E90.2080308@inex.ie> <20151029180729.GV70452@Space.Net> <20151030083346.56554c5c@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <20151030074801.GA70452@Space.Net> Message-ID: >> Might we instead inist that the ?let's make the RIPE NCC take existing >> IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)? crowd >> actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect? > > I'm willing to offer 10-15 minutes of air time at the upcoming RIPE meeting > to "pre-discuss" the viability of this does romanian customs allow import of rotten vegetables? From frettled at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 13:52:13 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:52:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria In-Reply-To: <1446149069.704412.423965601.0E2F56E7@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <028301d11249$f4d46d90$de7d48b0$@com> <563222AD.5070003@de-punkt.de> <1446149069.704412.423965601.0E2F56E7@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > While this has beed understood and accepted by some small players, > deploying IPv6 doesn't spare you of situations like: > - residential users that will cancel and make you bad press because > their PS4 doesn't work. Not with CGN, and for the moment not over v6(*) > - business users that will just not sign with you if you cannot provide > them their block of X public v4 addresses. Be happy if they don't > explicitely ask you to disable IPv6. > > > I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of > business. > > And once you have IPv6 as standard for everyone, but public dedicated v4 > either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ? > > In what context are these arguments relevant? The situations you describe and questions you ask are situations and issues that already have occurred or been raised, due to the scarcity of IPv4, and there is absolutely nothing we can do from a policy point to fix that. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: