From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Aug 8 14:09:36 2019 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:09:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 Review Phase (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) Message-ID: <8a614020-b960-5f4e-c9ae-ac59d0c6ab4d@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and finetune assignment criteria. The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the changes made to version v1.0 include: - The maximum assignment size to IXPs remains /22 - Defines that IPv4 ranges smaller than /24 will be added to the IXP pool The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community?s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to before 6 September 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC From job at ntt.net Fri Aug 9 12:54:52 2019 From: job at ntt.net (Job Snijders) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:54:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> Message-ID: <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> Dear all, I think Matthias' work aligns with my impression of the landscape: most IXPs never grow beyond 100 participants. I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs requesting some space, rather than a /24. The main advantage is that the pool of available space for this purpose will last our community longer. Perhaps even as much as twice the number of IXPs can take advantage of this arrangement. Kind regards, Job On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 11:00:43AM +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote: > Hi, > > I have compiled an in-depth analysis of peeringdb data. You can find a > full description of the method, scripts, data and the main results on > github: > > https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/ > > Some interesting takeaways: > > * Roughly 83% of all IXPs would theoretically fit into a /25. This > already includes 100% overprovisioning, i.e., 2xconnected ASes/IXP. At > the same time, 74% of all peering LANs are /24s. Consequently, the > default policy of assigning /24s has created large amounts of unused > space. > > * Already today, more than 10% of all peering LANs are smaller or equal > a /25. Having small peering LANs is not entirely unusual. > > * Large IXPs requiring a /23 or larger are rare (<3%). Thus, lowering > the upper bound for assignments to /23 will not save large amounts of > space. > > Conclusions: > > I back the proposal except for the limitation to a /23. I propose > having a /21 as an upper limit with thorough checks by RIPE. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 03:47 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > Hmm.. why shouldn't defunct IXPs not be taken in consideration > > > > though? > > > > > > Because they will have handed back their address space. > > > > what are you trying to measure? the space utilization of current > > operating exchanges, or the distribution of request sizes? > > > > randy > > > -- > > Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber > Researcher > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) > phone: +49 69 1730902 > mobile: +49 171 3836036 > fax: +49 69 4056 2716 > e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net > web: www.de-cix.net > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert > Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 > Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne From chriztoffer at netravnen.de Fri Aug 9 14:05:37 2019 From: chriztoffer at netravnen.de (Chriztoffer Hansen) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:05:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> Message-ID: <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> Job Snijders wrote on 09/08/2019 12:54: > I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs > requesting some space, rather than a /24. +1 (The default could be lowered to /26. On the conservative side. /25 is ; agreed ; a better suggestion.) From kuenzler at init7.net Fri Aug 9 14:08:55 2019 From: kuenzler at init7.net (Fredy Kuenzler) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:08:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> Message-ID: +1 for the /25. -- Fredy Kuenzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur Switzerland http://www.init7.net/ > Am 09.08.2019 um 14:05 schrieb Chriztoffer Hansen : > > > Job Snijders wrote on 09/08/2019 12:54: >> I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs >> requesting some space, rather than a /24. > > +1 > > (The default could be lowered to /26. On the conservative side. /25 is ; agreed ; a better suggestion.) > From dominik at clouvider.co.uk Fri Aug 9 14:13:09 2019 From: dominik at clouvider.co.uk (Dominik Nowacki) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:13:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de>, Message-ID: <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: +1 for the /25. -- Fredy Kuenzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur Switzerland http://www.init7.net/ Am 09.08.2019 um 14:05 schrieb Chriztoffer Hansen >: Job Snijders wrote on 09/08/2019 12:54: I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs requesting some space, rather than a /24. +1 (The default could be lowered to /26. On the conservative side. /25 is ; agreed ; a better suggestion.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Fri Aug 9 14:26:37 2019 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Jetten Raymond) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:26:37 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de>, <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> Message-ID: Support for /25 +1 Cheers, Ray From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki Sent: 9. elokuuta 2019 15:13 To: Fredy Kuenzler Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: +1 for the /25. -- Fredy Kuenzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur Switzerland http://www.init7.net/ Am 09.08.2019 um 14:05 schrieb Chriztoffer Hansen >: Job Snijders wrote on 09/08/2019 12:54: I'd like to suggest that by default a /25 IPv4 block is assigned to IXPs requesting some space, rather than a /24. +1 (The default could be lowered to /26. On the conservative side. /25 is ; agreed ; a better suggestion.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tore at fud.no Fri Aug 9 14:40:03 2019 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:40:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> References: <20190529131131.GQ53067@carcass.ledeuns.net> <5770fa88-6f96-2a8b-efbf-9070bf7b3d5b@ams-ix.net> <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> Message-ID: * Dominik Nowacki > Same here, +1 for /25 Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory. As the NCC's impact analysis states, these currently have no policy that allows for their use, so they'd be left to rot. Small IXPs can use them just fine, though, so I see no reason to not allow for that. > /26 is too small Not at all. Quoting from Matthias's report: ?71.73% of all IXPs would fit into a /26 including 100% overprovisioning? > You don?t want IX to have to Re-number Why not? While it is somewhat of a hassle, renumbering an IXP is a relatively straightforward operation. I've participated in one such exercise myself (at NIX), and it wasn't difficult. It can certainly not compare to the challenge a regular network operator would face when renumbering out of a regular ALLOCATED PA block. We're at the end of the road when it comes for IPv4. If we take care to not assign IXP blocks gratuitously, the pool might actually end up lasting forever. [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-June/012909.html Tore From gert at space.net Fri Aug 9 14:41:17 2019 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:41:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> Message-ID: <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 12:26:37PM +0000, Jetten Raymond wrote: > Support for /25 +1 I hope you are all aware that you are asking for something which *was* in version 1.0 of this proposal, and which was *not* receiving positive feedback in the discussion phase. Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for IXPs). Just sayin. Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Fri Aug 9 14:53:13 2019 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:53:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> Message-ID: <20190809125313.GG51928@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: >Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory. I can't see how an IXP with 6 members (including RC/RS) would even be viable unless it's some hobby effort, so I wouldn't go overboard. >As the NCC's impact analysis states, these currently have no policy that allows for their use, so they'd be left to rot. One possibility would be to assign them for PNIs - which is an IXP with two members, at the end of the day. ;p >We're at the end of the road when it comes for IPv4. If we take care to not assign IXP blocks gratuitously, the pool might actually end up lasting forever. Why would this be desirable? Surely there is a functional limit on the numbers of viable IXPs in the service region? Besides, I still have some hope in RFC5549 eventually obsoleting IPv4 peering altogether... Meanwhile I could live with an either /25 or /26 IXP default assignment. rgds, Sascha Luck From tore at fud.no Fri Aug 9 15:00:32 2019 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:00:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809125313.GG51928@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809125313.GG51928@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <71026e2d-d8e7-cf4f-1a77-df9bb9353550@fud.no> * Sascha Luck [ml] > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: >> Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory. > > I can't see how an IXP with 6 members (including RC/RS) would even be viable unless it's some hobby effort, so I wouldn't go overboard. Repeating myself again, just here in my small home country of Norway, there are (at least) four examples of such IXPs: BIX, SIX, TIX and TRDIX. https://www.nix.no/who-is-connected/ (scroll down to the bottom table). They have been around for a long time, so I'd assume they are ?viable?. They are run by the same organisation who runs NIX, so it's not ?some hobby effort?. Tore From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Aug 9 15:02:46 2019 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:02:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3B04DB0D-07A9-4BFD-B0ED-9F84940E3BBF@rfc1035.com> > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:41, Gert Doering wrote: > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). All the more reason for pursuing this wonderful idea Gert. Once v4's all gone, how about we develop v4 allocations policies that could be used if only there was address space to allocate? That would keep the WG busy for a long time. What's not to like? :-) From frettled at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 15:15:46 2019 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:15:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <71026e2d-d8e7-cf4f-1a77-df9bb9353550@fud.no> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809125313.GG51928@cilantro.c4inet.net> <71026e2d-d8e7-cf4f-1a77-df9bb9353550@fud.no> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:00 PM Tore Anderson wrote: > * Sascha Luck [ml] > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > >> Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This > because the /29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC > inventory. > > Well, I see that I could have participated at an earlier point in time and muttered agreement for this. Sorry about that, because I do agree. But as I understand it, there is not enough support for that? However, in the proposal, we do have the following paragraph, in which /29 could be substituted for /27, as a sort of compromise? 1. New IXPs will be assigned a /24 by default. Once they require a larger assignment, they must return their current one (or existing PI used as an IXP peering LAN) and receive a replacement up to maximum of a /22. After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. On request or once there are no more assignments of /24 (or larger) available, assignments can be made down to /27. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Fri Aug 9 15:17:42 2019 From: wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 13:17:42 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> Message-ID: <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> ...and because of that I am happy with version 2.0 of 2019-05 as it is written. Wolfgang > On 9. Aug 2019, at 14:41, Gert Doering wrote: > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net From tore at fud.no Fri Aug 9 15:50:37 2019 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:50:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> Message-ID: * Gert Doering > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). The IA states that the NCC can set aside the required /16 already at the point in time when this proposal enters Last Call. As I understand it, this means we have enough time to cut another version of this proposal if we want to. In particular, I am disappointed that the authors did not implement (or even comment on) my discussion phase suggestion[1] to use the 5.2 Unforeseen Circumstances pool for the IXP pool expansion. It is perfectly sized at /16, and it is adjacent to the current IXP pool, which means the resulting new IXP pool would have been an *actual* /15. As I understand the current proposal and the NCC's impact analysis, implementation of this proposal would necessarily mean that the resulting IXP pool would be at best two disjoint /16s, at worst one /16 plus a bunch of smaller fragments scattered all over the address space. That'd be a shame, in my opinion. [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-May/012885.html Tore From matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net Fri Aug 9 16:41:01 2019 From: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net (Matthias Wichtlhuber) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:41:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net>, <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <438c9c4c126e435ab3cb8220c1941cf2@de-cix.net> I agree. I would like to see the current proposal 2.0 of 2019-05 implemented rather sooner than later. We shouldn't rely on the projected date of IPv4 depletion. I'd prefer to have a separate proposal on the lower boundary of allocation. This would allow for a broader discussion on how to handle the trade-off between size of allocation and renumbering. Matthias -- Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber Researcher ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) phone: +49 69 1730902 mobile: +49 171 3836036 fax: +49 69 4056 2716 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net web: www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg im Auftrag von Wolfgang Tremmel Gesendet: Freitag, 9. August 2019 15:17 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) ...and because of that I am happy with version 2.0 of 2019-05 as it is written. Wolfgang > On 9. Aug 2019, at 14:41, Gert Doering wrote: > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Executive Directors: Harald A. Summa and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net From gert at space.net Fri Aug 9 21:43:36 2019 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 21:43:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20190809194336.GN55186@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:50:37PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Gert Doering > > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > > IXPs). > > The IA states that the NCC can set aside the required /16 already at the point in time when this proposal enters Last Call. > > As I understand it, this means we have enough time to cut another version of this proposal if we want to. You *could* play the PDP this way, by letting it pass review phase (where it is now), wait until the NCC sets aside the /16, and then call "foul!" in last call, to have it bounce back to the review phase... Between review and last call, no changes can be made - a new version with changed text (more than typos) would have to go through a new IA and a new review phase - which normally happens if there is sufficient opposition in review phase that a new version is warranted. > In particular, I am disappointed that the authors did not implement (or even comment on) my discussion phase suggestion[1] to use the 5.2 Unforeseen Circumstances pool for the IXP pool expansion. It is perfectly sized at /16, and it is adjacent to the current IXP pool, which means the resulting new IXP pool would have been an *actual* /15. > > As I understand the current proposal and the NCC's impact analysis, implementation of this proposal would necessarily mean that the resulting IXP pool would be at best two disjoint /16s, at worst one /16 plus a bunch of smaller fragments scattered all over the address space. That'd be a shame, in my opinion. Mmmh. Marco, can you comment on whether this is an implementation thing at the NCC, or whether you'd need a formal statement in the policy text to make this happen? (While it's all just numbers, some numbers look more familiar than others, so having all IXP space "in one block" is a bit easier on "oh, these numbers look IXPish" - so I can see that it would be nice) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nick at foobar.org Sat Aug 10 10:29:30 2019 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:29:30 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an important function for the Internet as a whole. Nick > Wolfgang Tremmel > 9 August 2019 at 16:17 > ...and because of that I am happy with version 2.0 of 2019-05 as it is > written. > > Wolfgang > > > > Gert Doering > 9 August 2019 at 15:41 > Hi, > > I hope you are all aware that you are asking for something which *was* > in version 1.0 of this proposal, and which was *not* receiving positive > feedback in the discussion phase. > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). > > Just sayin. > > Gert Doering > -- AWPG chair > Jetten Raymond > 9 August 2019 at 15:26 > > Support for /25???? ?+1 > > Cheers, > > Ray > > *From:*address-policy-wg *On > Behalf Of *Dominik Nowacki > *Sent:* 9. elokuuta 2019 15:13 > *To:* Fredy Kuenzler > *Cc:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal > (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) > > Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to > Re-number > > With Kind Regards, > > Dominik Nowacki > > Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and > Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered office: > 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that > Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content > of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message > contains confidential information and is intended only for the > intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended > recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > Please notify abuse at clouvider.net ?of this > e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission > cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could > be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, > or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees > therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the > contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail > transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy > version. > > > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: > > Dominik Nowacki > 9 August 2019 at 15:13 > Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to > Re-number > > With Kind Regards, > Dominik Nowacki > > Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and > Wales. Registered number: _08750969_ . Registered > office: _88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS_. Please > note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also > the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. > This message contains confidential information and is intended only > for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended > recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > Please notify _abuse at clouvider.net_ ?of > this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by > mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission > cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could > be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, > or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees > therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the > contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail > transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy > version. > > On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: > > Fredy Kuenzler > 9 August 2019 at 15:08 > +1 for the /25. > > -- > Fredy Kuenzler > Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. > Technoparkstrasse 5 > CH-8406 Winterthur > Switzerland > > http://www.init7.net/ > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nurani at nimblebits.net Sat Aug 10 18:10:42 2019 From: nurani at nimblebits.net (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 18:10:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> Message-ID: <18F87503-8BCC-41D7-AEDD-C8550BDC1D58@nimblebits.net> I completely agree with Nick?s statement below. I support the proposal as it stands. Nurani > On 10 Aug 2019, at 10:29, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an important function for the Internet as a whole. > > Nick > >> Wolfgang Tremmel 9 August 2019 at 16:17 >> ...and because of that I am happy with version 2.0 of 2019-05 as it is written. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> Gert Doering 9 August 2019 at 15:41 >> Hi, >> >> I hope you are all aware that you are asking for something which *was* >> in version 1.0 of this proposal, and which was *not* receiving positive >> feedback in the discussion phase. >> >> Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this >> proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of >> IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for >> IXPs). >> >> Just sayin. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- AWPG chair >> Jetten Raymond 9 August 2019 at 15:26 >> Support for /25 +1 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ray >> >> From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki >> Sent: 9. elokuuta 2019 15:13 >> To: Fredy Kuenzler >> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) >> >> Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number >> >> With Kind Regards, >> Dominik Nowacki >> >> Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. >> >> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: >> >> Dominik Nowacki 9 August 2019 at 15:13 >> Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number >> >> With Kind Regards, >> Dominik Nowacki >> >> Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969 . Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS . Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. >> >> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: >> >> Fredy Kuenzler 9 August 2019 at 15:08 >> +1 for the /25. >> >> -- >> Fredy Kuenzler >> Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. >> Technoparkstrasse 5 >> CH-8406 Winterthur >> Switzerland >> >> http://www.init7.net/ >> >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andy at nosignal.org Sun Aug 11 11:03:48 2019 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 09:03:48 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net>, <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> Message-ID: Hi I strongly agree with Nick and support version 2.0. No need to produce a revision changing the default away from /24. The discussion passim about smaller assignments needs no rehashing - happily give IXPs a smaller prefix if requested. Andy On 10 Aug 2019, at 09:59, Nick Hilliard > wrote: I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an important function for the Internet as a whole. Nick Wolfgang Tremmel 9 August 2019 at 16:17 ...and because of that I am happy with version 2.0 of 2019-05 as it is written. Wolfgang Gert Doering 9 August 2019 at 15:41 Hi, I hope you are all aware that you are asking for something which *was* in version 1.0 of this proposal, and which was *not* receiving positive feedback in the discussion phase. Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for IXPs). Just sayin. Gert Doering -- AWPG chair Jetten Raymond 9 August 2019 at 15:26 Support for /25 +1 Cheers, Ray From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki Sent: 9. elokuuta 2019 15:13 To: Fredy Kuenzler Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: Dominik Nowacki 9 August 2019 at 15:13 Same here, +1 for /25 - /26 is too small, You don?t want IX to have to Re-number With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse at clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:09, Fredy Kuenzler > wrote: Fredy Kuenzler 9 August 2019 at 15:08 +1 for the /25. -- Fredy Kuenzler Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd. Technoparkstrasse 5 CH-8406 Winterthur Switzerland http://www.init7.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Sun Aug 11 22:16:53 2019 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 13:16:53 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> Message-ID: > I strongly agree with Nick and support version 2.0. No need to produce > a revision changing the default away from /24. how about /24.5? :) enough already. ship it. randy From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Mon Aug 12 10:01:57 2019 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:01:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2019-05_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Rev?= =?utf-8?q?ised_IPv4_assignment_policy_for_IXPs=29?= In-Reply-To: <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> Message-ID: <435fbec7-f983-44c3-8791-6cbe8c024099@www.fastmail.com> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, at 10:59, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it > is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the > opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an > important function for the Internet as a whole. +1 We should go on with the current version. *IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you can still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the extra space secured. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From sander at steffann.nl Tue Aug 13 00:25:41 2019 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:25:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <557F00E5-387C-4508-9A1C-98E02134B9B2@steffann.nl> Hi, > Op 11 aug. 2019, om 22:16 heeft Randy Bush het volgende geschreven: > >> I strongly agree with Nick and support version 2.0. No need to produce >> a revision changing the default away from /24. > > how about /24.5? :) Brilliant idea ;) > enough already. ship it. I agree, it's a good proposal. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 13 01:17:16 2019 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:17:16 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <557F00E5-387C-4508-9A1C-98E02134B9B2@steffann.nl> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <557F00E5-387C-4508-9A1C-98E02134B9B2@steffann.nl> Message-ID: >> how about /24.5? :) > Brilliant idea ;) back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for, and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space. i probably have the record of it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule. randy From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Aug 13 02:42:12 2019 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 01:42:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <557F00E5-387C-4508-9A1C-98E02134B9B2@steffann.nl> Message-ID: > On 13 Aug 2019, at 00:17, Randy Bush wrote: > > back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for, > and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space. i probably have the record of > it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule. Randy, think how much all that space would be worth on the transfer market. You should look *very* hard to find that email because you could make $$$$. :-) From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Aug 13 14:21:04 2019 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:21:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <20190809194336.GN55186@Space.Net> References: <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <20190809194336.GN55186@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hello Gert and colleagues, On 09/08/2019 21:43, Gert Doering wrote: >> As I understand the current proposal and the NCC's impact analysis, implementation of this proposal would necessarily mean that the resulting IXP pool would be at best two disjoint /16s, at worst one /16 plus a bunch of smaller fragments scattered all over the address space. That'd be a shame, in my opinion. > Mmmh. Marco, can you comment on whether this is an implementation thing > at the NCC, or whether you'd need a formal statement in the policy text > to make this happen? > > (While it's all just numbers, some numbers look more familiar than others, > so having all IXP space "in one block" is a bit easier on "oh, these > numbers look IXPish" - so I can see that it would be nice) Yes, this is an implementation thing. While the IPv4 Policy requires that we set aside a /16 for unforseen circumstances, it doesn't specify the range or that it must be a contiguous block. At RIPE 77, Andrea Cima suggested that this (currently contiguous) /16 could be replaced with an equivalent of /23s and /24s as we near IPv4 runout: https://ripe77.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/71-Andrea_Cima_RIPE_77_APWG.pdf There was general support for the idea, though some questioned the intent of doing this to create more convenient /22 allocations. Now with this proposal, we plan to replace the currently-reserved 185.0.0.0/16 and use this for the IXP pool if this proposal reaches consensus. So Tore's suggestion would be achieved. It should be noted that for this to happen, there must be at least a /16 of regular space in our remaining pool when rough consensus is reached, to allow us to make the swap. The IPv4 Policy is clear that this reserved space must be used for IPv4 allocations as per section 5.1. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Tue Aug 13 14:40:34 2019 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:40:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <557F00E5-387C-4508-9A1C-98E02134B9B2@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <86919DEE-D473-40D8-A722-B53F7B439B1E@steffann.nl> Hi, > Op 13 aug. 2019, om 01:17 heeft Randy Bush het volgende geschreven: > >>> how about /24.5? :) >> Brilliant idea ;) > > back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for, > and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space. i probably have the record of > it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule. Wow, I didn't know A+P/MAP had been invented back then. Which PSID did you get? ;) Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From rfg at tristatelogic.com Mon Aug 19 01:07:22 2019 From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2019 16:07:22 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Staff participation in the IP market Message-ID: <4521.1566169642@segfault.tristatelogic.com> Please forgive me if this question is deemed inappropriate for this specific mailing list and working group. This seems to be the most appropriate WG for my question. I hope also that no one will take any offense nor any unstated implication from my question. I intend to put this question also to the communities of each and every one of the five global Regional Internet Registries. Nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am starting this process in the RIPE region. My question is a simple one: Are policies in place, within the RIPE region, which prohibit RIPE NCC staff members from participating in the current open market for IP addresses? I do believe that everyone on this mailing list must be well and truly aware of that fact that the buying, selling, and trading of IPv4 addresses is nowadays a lucrative and growing business. It should also be altogether clear and apparent that RIPE NCC staff could, if permitted to do so, leverage their significant and special ``insider'' knowledge to gain some advantage in this market, relative to other market participants. Thus, I wish to know simply if such participation is or is not currently prohibited or allowed by current applicable staff policy. To reiterate, nothing at all should be inferred from my question. I am most assuredly not making any allegations nor even any vague implications by my question. This general question came up in an unrelated context, and now I just want to know whether or not each of the five regions have policies in place with respect to staff participation in the burgeoning IP address market. Regards, rfg From fvictolla at ripe.net Mon Aug 19 17:04:55 2019 From: fvictolla at ripe.net (Felipe Victolla Silveira) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:04:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Staff participation in the IP market In-Reply-To: <4521.1566169642@segfault.tristatelogic.com> References: <4521.1566169642@segfault.tristatelogic.com> Message-ID: <22C51275-C6AD-45FB-879E-418DE2C5EBED@ripe.net> Dear Ronald, Thank you for your question. We have an internal code of conduct that applies to all staff and has a section on conflicts of interest. This covers these kinds of situations. Violating the code of conduct could result in an employee being dismissed - this would obviously depend on the details of the case. Certainly, anything involving the transfer market and especially the use of inside or confidential information would be taken seriously. Regarding whether there is a RIPE policy that covers this, it would be out of scope for community policy to determine internal staffing matters at the RIPE NCC. Regards, Felipe Victolla Silveira Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC > On 19 Aug 2019, at 01:07, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > Please forgive me if this question is deemed inappropriate for this > specific mailing list and working group. This seems to be the most > appropriate WG for my question. > > I hope also that no one will take any offense nor any unstated > implication from my question. I intend to put this question also > to the communities of each and every one of the five global > Regional Internet Registries. Nothing should be inferred from > the fact that I am starting this process in the RIPE region. > > My question is a simple one: Are policies in place, within the RIPE > region, which prohibit RIPE NCC staff members from participating in > the current open market for IP addresses? > > I do believe that everyone on this mailing list must be well and truly > aware of that fact that the buying, selling, and trading of IPv4 addresses > is nowadays a lucrative and growing business. It should also be altogether > clear and apparent that RIPE NCC staff could, if permitted to do so, > leverage their significant and special ``insider'' knowledge to gain > some advantage in this market, relative to other market participants. > Thus, I wish to know simply if such participation is or is not currently > prohibited or allowed by current applicable staff policy. > > To reiterate, nothing at all should be inferred from my question. I am > most assuredly not making any allegations nor even any vague implications > by my question. This general question came up in an unrelated context, > and now I just want to know whether or not each of the five regions have > policies in place with respect to staff participation in the burgeoning > IP address market. > > > Regards, > rfg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rfg at tristatelogic.com Mon Aug 19 23:07:17 2019 From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:07:17 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Staff participation in the IP market In-Reply-To: <22C51275-C6AD-45FB-879E-418DE2C5EBED@ripe.net> Message-ID: <18840.1566248837@segfault.tristatelogic.com> In message <22C51275-C6AD-45FB-879E-418DE2C5EBED at ripe.net>, Felipe Victolla Silveira wrote: >Thank you for your question. We have an internal code of conduct that >applies to all staff and has a section on conflicts of interest. This >covers these kinds of situations. > >Violating the code of conduct could result in an employee being >dismissed - this would obviously depend on the details of the case. >Certainly, anything involving the transfer market and especially the use >of inside or confidential information would be taken seriously. > >Regarding whether there is a RIPE policy that covers this, it would be >out of scope for community policy to determine internal staffing matters >at the RIPE NCC. Thank you Felipe. Your answer is a good one and entirely appropriate in all respects. Now I will just be hoping that I can get a similar answer from each of the other RIRs. If any of the other RIRs have not yet adequately considered this issue, I will be pointing them at your response to my question and asking them to likewise adopt... as RIPE has done... internal codes of conduct with clear and express provisions regarding possible conflicts of interest, especially as they might relate to the IP trading market. Regards, rfg From aled.w.morris at googlemail.com Wed Aug 28 12:25:58 2019 From: aled.w.morris at googlemail.com (Aled Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:25:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: So Long Last /8 and Thanks For All the Allocations In-Reply-To: <58d2f733-2cad-c24c-458a-103d91aa08ec@ripe.net> References: <58d2f733-2cad-c24c-458a-103d91aa08ec@ripe.net> Message-ID: I see new LIR applications are on the increase as we head towards full IPv4 depletion. I suspect many are companies with existing LIR status opening additional LIR accounts to obtain their /22. I suppose this rate of new LIRs will slow dramatically in the new year when there are no more IPv4 addresses to be had and in two years time, many of these "secondary" LIRs will be shut and their resources transferred to the owners' primary LIR accounts. One thing that occurs to me is that all of this could represent a significant slow down of funds into RIPE. I hope they are taking this into account in their financial planning, these "opportunist" LIRs bring in a lot in membership fees. Aled -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at foobar.org Wed Aug 28 12:30:28 2019 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:30:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: So Long Last /8 and Thanks For All the Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <58d2f733-2cad-c24c-458a-103d91aa08ec@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5a49d71f-47ba-a177-1149-e59bb51b5a51@foobar.org> Aled Morris via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/08/2019 11:25: > One thing that occurs to me is that all of this could represent a > significant slow down of funds into RIPE.? I hope they are taking this > into account in their financial planning, these "opportunist" LIRs bring > in a lot in membership fees. yes, this has been modelled from a financial planning point of view. Nick