From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Sep 6 16:01:44 2016 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:01:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 72 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 72 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-72 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From mir at ripe.net Wed Sep 21 16:04:16 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:04:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: All Quiet in the IPv4 Internet? Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs by Philipp Richter: All Quiet in the IPv4 Internet? The number of new IPv4 allocations has stagnated, address markets have taken off, and address sharing mechanisms (for example, Carrier-Grade NAT) are on the rise as operators try to squeeze the most out of their IPv4 address space. But what is really happening in the IPv4 address space? Measuring address space activity at scale is difficult. There?s really no single vantage point that can capture all the activity. Read more on RIPE Labs (this article was originally published on the APNIC blog): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/philipp_richter/all-quiet-in-the-ipv4-internet Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From pingip.network at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 14:37:25 2016 From: pingip.network at gmail.com (Ping IP) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:37:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses Message-ID: Hello, One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP ranges for a greater block. For example: LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the Internet. According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this ability. I'm curious to what you think of this idea. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mozafary at greenweb.ir Thu Sep 22 14:43:43 2016 From: mozafary at greenweb.ir (Mozafary Mohammad) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:13:43 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello The suggestion help IP broker to made bigger IP block and earn more money. bigger IP block is more expensive than smaller one. :) Also why RIPE NCC should return "Spam dirty" IP range and assign new one to a user? Thanks On 9/22/2016 4:07 PM, Ping IP wrote: > Hello, > > One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to > suggest the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of > blocks of IP ranges for a greater block. > > For example: > LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange > these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. > > This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP > subnets to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP > addresses on the Internet. > > According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible > according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End > User this ability. > > I'm curious to what you think of this idea. > > Best regards, > > Abdelouahed > Ping IP network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garry at nethinks.com Thu Sep 22 14:47:08 2016 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:47:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Guten Tag, > Hello, > > One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to > suggest the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of > blocks of IP ranges for a greater block. > > For example: > LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange > these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. > > This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP > subnets to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP > addresses on the Internet. > > According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible > according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End > User this ability. > > I'm curious to what you think of this idea. Good idea, but judging from the increased trend to de-aggregation of existing subnets in order to allow multi-homing of PA-subnets, I doubt that there'll be many people interested, given the (usually) necessary work that has to be put into renumbering ... while going against the trend with this suggestion might be nice for the overall community by saving some memory on all of our routers, the advantage for the ISP or person returning multiple subnets for a larger one is (usually) rather small ... if, of course, RIPE would incentivize by - e.g. - returning a /21 for 6 /24's, I guess some people might be interested ;) But then people not that "lucky" to have multiple small PAs would complain, as would (rightfully so) the ones interested in conserving IP addresses ;) Also, isn't there some provision already for LIRs to be able to return subnets for a another? Regards, Garry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phessler at theapt.org Thu Sep 22 14:46:03 2016 From: phessler at theapt.org (Peter Hessler) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:46:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160922124603.GI19434@gir.theapt.org> Hi Clarification question. Are you requesting that non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the equivalent size in a single continuous IPv4 block that does not match the previously issued IPv4 addresses, or do you want to take continuous IPv4 blocks and combine them? On 2016 Sep 22 (Thu) at 14:37:25 +0200 (+0200), Ping IP wrote: :Hello, : :One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest :the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP :ranges for a greater block. : :For example: :LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange :these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. : :This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets :to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the :Internet. : :According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible according :the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this :ability. : :I'm curious to what you think of this idea. : :Best regards, : :Abdelouahed :Ping IP network -- People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that Benjamin Franklin said it first. From jk at rz089.de Thu Sep 22 16:11:48 2016 From: jk at rz089.de (=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rg?= Kost) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:11:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I like the idealism of this idea, but it is too little, too late and much too many work to save a few bytes on the ip4 routing table. This race is lost, adding more memory to the board or block and remove certain routes will be the solution. My focus shifted already to the future (?) disaggregation of ip6, where we had hit the 32k lately. J?rg On 22 Sep 2016, at 14:37, Ping IP wrote: > Hello, > > One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to > suggest > the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP > ranges for a greater block. > > For example: > LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange > these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. > > This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP > subnets > to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on > the > Internet. > > According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible > according > the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this > ability. > > I'm curious to what you think of this idea. > > Best regards, > > Abdelouahed > Ping IP network From arash_mpc at parsun.com Fri Sep 23 06:30:26 2016 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:30:26 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009d01d21553$45026760$cf073620$@parsun.com> Soon or late it will end up here to ?IPv4 is DEAD, go and develop IPv6?, that?s a regular answer here when you bring up something related to IPv4 J Your idea looks like a disk defragmentation procedure, but first you need to check how many percent it is defragmented and how much free space you will need to do the procedure. Regards, Arash From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ping IP Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2016 10:37 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses Hello, One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP ranges for a greater block. For example: LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the Internet. According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this ability. I'm curious to what you think of this idea. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Sep 23 08:38:01 2016 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:38:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: <009d01d21553$45026760$cf073620$@parsun.com> References: <009d01d21553$45026760$cf073620$@parsun.com> Message-ID: Hi There: Although it does sounds good idea consider how big the routing table has become, but in practice, I guess would be very difficult, as there is no way to prevent people spam them then return to RIPE NCC for a new one, plus, with smaller allocation pool every day, the ability RIPE NCC would be able to practice such policy, would be in a rather limited time, so it will be a policy only works for---let's say 6 months, longest 2 years. So I agree with Arash, leave the IPv4 alone, seriously, get IPv6 done so you don't have to look at the size of IPv4 routing table. On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > > Soon or late it will end up here to ?IPv4 is DEAD, go and develop IPv6?, > that?s a regular answer here when you bring up something related to IPv4 J > > > > Your idea looks like a disk defragmentation procedure, but first you need > to check how many percent it is defragmented and how much free space you > will need to do the procedure. > > > > Regards, > > > > Arash > > > > > > > > > > *From:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *On > Behalf Of *Ping IP > *Sent:* Thursday, 22 September 2016 10:37 PM > *To:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses > > > > Hello, > > > > One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest > the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP > ranges for a greater block. > > > > For example: > > LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange > these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. > > > > This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets > to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the > Internet. > > > > According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible > according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User > this ability. > > > > I'm curious to what you think of this idea. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Abdelouahed > > Ping IP network > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pingip.network at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 09:09:26 2016 From: pingip.network at gmail.com (Ping IP) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:09:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20160922124603.GI19434@gir.theapt.org> References: <20160922124603.GI19434@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: Hello Peter, *"non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the equivalent size in a single continuous IPv4 block"* Correct. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network 2016-09-22 14:46 GMT+02:00 Peter Hessler : > Hi > > Clarification question. > > Are you requesting that non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the > equivalent size in a single continuous IPv4 block that does not match the > previously issued IPv4 addresses, or do you want to take continuous IPv4 > blocks and combine them? > > > On 2016 Sep 22 (Thu) at 14:37:25 +0200 (+0200), Ping IP wrote: > :Hello, > : > :One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest > :the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP > :ranges for a greater block. > : > :For example: > :LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange > :these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. > : > :This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets > :to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the > :Internet. > : > :According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible > according > :the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this > :ability. > : > :I'm curious to what you think of this idea. > : > :Best regards, > : > :Abdelouahed > :Ping IP network > > -- > People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that > Benjamin Franklin said it first. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pingip.network at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 09:10:15 2016 From: pingip.network at gmail.com (Ping IP) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:10:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: <2FAB5F5B-A909-4D84-89EB-D5BB22F83F4A@premium-datacenter.de> References: <2FAB5F5B-A909-4D84-89EB-D5BB22F83F4A@premium-datacenter.de> Message-ID: Hello J?rg, Although I used a /22 and /20 as an example. I deliberately mention IP addresses, since this idea can be used for IPv4 and IPv6. Perhaps its too little, too late for IPv4. But it helps one of the goals of RIPE. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network 2016-09-22 16:04 GMT+02:00 J?rg Kost : > Hi, > > I like the idealism of this idea, but it is too little, too late and much > too many work to save a few bytes on the ip4 routing table. This race is > lost, adding more memory to the board or block and remove certain routes > will be the solution. My focus shifted already to the future (?) > disaggregation of ip6, where we had hit the 32k lately. > > J?rg > > > On 22 Sep 2016, at 14:37, Ping IP wrote: > > Hello, >> >> One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest >> the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP >> ranges for a greater block. >> >> For example: >> LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange >> these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. >> >> This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets >> to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the >> Internet. >> >> According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible >> according >> the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this >> ability. >> >> I'm curious to what you think of this idea. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Abdelouahed >> Ping IP network >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jk at rz089.de Fri Sep 23 09:25:38 2016 From: jk at rz089.de (=?utf-8?q?J=C3=B6rg?= Kost) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:25:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: <2FAB5F5B-A909-4D84-89EB-D5BB22F83F4A@premium-datacenter.de> Message-ID: <9AE8C495-EC3E-46C4-B58A-CED59FF39A16@rz089.de> Hi, but the receiving party could (will?) announce more specific prefixes after the trade, therefore it wont make a big difference after all. J?rg On 23 Sep 2016, at 9:10, Ping IP wrote: > Hello J?rg, > > Although I used a /22 and /20 as an example. I deliberately mention IP > addresses, since this idea can be used for IPv4 and IPv6. > > Perhaps its too little, too late for IPv4. But it helps one of the > goals of > RIPE. > > Best regards, > > Abdelouahed > Ping IP network > > 2016-09-22 16:04 GMT+02:00 J?rg Kost > : > >> Hi, >> >> I like the idealism of this idea, but it is too little, too late and >> much >> too many work to save a few bytes on the ip4 routing table. This race >> is >> lost, adding more memory to the board or block and remove certain >> routes >> will be the solution. My focus shifted already to the future (?) >> disaggregation of ip6, where we had hit the 32k lately. >> >> J?rg >> >> >> On 22 Sep 2016, at 14:37, Ping IP wrote: >> >> Hello, >>> >>> One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to >>> suggest >>> the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of >>> IP >>> ranges for a greater block. >>> >>> For example: >>> LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can >>> exchange >>> these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. >>> >>> This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP >>> subnets >>> to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on >>> the >>> Internet. >>> >>> According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible >>> according >>> the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User >>> this >>> ability. >>> >>> I'm curious to what you think of this idea. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Abdelouahed >>> Ping IP network >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Sun Sep 25 18:51:52 2016 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:51:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: <20160922124603.GI19434@gir.theapt.org> Message-ID: Hi, > "non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the equivalent size in a single continuous IPv4 block" I think the problem with this is that it let's spammers exchange dirty blocks for clean blocks. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2084 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Sep 27 15:08:32 2016 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:08:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation?s business (such as a merger or acquisition) You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 26 October 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum