lir-wg draft minutes from RIPE 38
Hans Petter Holen hph at online.no
Tue May 1 21:51:30 CEST 2001
Dear lir-wg, I am sorry for submitting the draft minutes to you at such a late stage, it is partly due to the fact that I myself got the minutes rather late, partly due to my own lack of time to go trough them. Hans Petter --------- Draft Minutes Tuesday 23 January 2001. Scribe: RIPE NCC Hostmaster - Geoff Charters, Roger Arcilla Hans Petter Holen (HPH) opens the meeting by describing the way policies are developed in this region. Policies are developed in open forums (LIR-WG in the RIPE region). The Address Council (AC) oversees the process and gives resommendations to the ICANN board. He asks the audience to give input to the AC. He also stresses that the AC are elected by the regional policy foras like the lir-wg and that we are not there to make policy ourselves, but merely to oversee the policy making in the regions. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR)5 HPH introduces the members of the AC: There are 3 members from the APNIC region, 3 from the ARIN region, 3 from the RIPE region (see http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/) Sabine Jaumes term is ending. At the RIPE 38 plenary session elections will take place. HPH describes how the AC operates: The AC makes an effort not only to attend open policy forums and other events in the recpetive region, but also to gather input trough special input foras. The AC and the RIRs have recently sent out a call for nominations for a vacant ICANN board seat. Nominations can be submitted by anyone. There is also a possibility to express support for nominees. In order to keep the geographic diversity on the ICANN board, the new board member cannot come from Europe or the Asian Pacific region. Address allocation policies are developed in a bottom-up manner in each region. How is global policy developed? Is a proposal first discussed in each region and then coordinatd between the RIRs? This can be a long process. Do we need to create a gobal mechanism? Is there more co-ordination necessary between the RIRs or the regional open policy forums? What are global issues, what are regional? HPH reports from the workshop the AC had with the RIRs and IANA in Brisbane in November 2000. It was a very productive and effective workshop. The role of the AC was discussed. Is the AC too active or not active enough? An action was placed on the RIR's to compare regional policies. The goal is not to produce the same policies - but to find the differences. There might reasons for different policies. The general issue on how to take care of resource (IP addresses, ASNs). Is it a public resource that need to be protected or should it be market driven or auctioned? The AC is committed to be more proactive in informing the community about their acivities by creating a publically archived mailing list which is used for AC meeting agendas, minutes and policy discussions. Only about 5 people in the audience looked at the ASO web site. HPH encourgaes everyone to follow the developments. One achievement during last year was the discussion related to address space needed for GPRS. This has been taken up in all regions and is being handled in a consistent way. Up til now, address requirements for the GPRS infrastructure has been discussed. Further discussions need to take addresses for handsets into account. Many of these developments address issues listed by the Ad hoc group. The Ad hoc group will present its final report to ICANN shortly and will then be closed. The RIRs submitted a document to the AC and to ICANN listing criteria to be used by ICANN when approving emerging RIR. According the ASO MoU it is ICANN that makes the final decision about the approval of a new RIR. One important criteria is strong support from within the region of the emerging RIR. Similar to the RIPE LIR-WG there are open policy forums in the ARIN and APNIC regions. HPH wonders if this was a useful overview of AC activities and asks for feedback. What should be on the AC's list of actions for 2001? The audience feels this was useful. Mark McFadden wants the AC to do more. In particular: there is a lot of discussion about scarcity of IPv4 addresses and ASNs. A lot of work is done in an uncoordinated way. Wants the AC to co-ordinate this. Spreaded activities all over the world, wants the AC to combine this work. He is not suggesting that they do the work themselves. He also wants the AC be more active in globalising addressing policies. He also feels that RFC2050 should be revised, the AC should not do this, but another group. It is out of date and incomplete. Randy Bush agrees with Marks second point, it would be nice to have policies/procedures more aligned. To the first point, this work is ongoing in the IETF. The only useful addition one could be to compile and bundle this work for people who do not have the time to follow all developments. Mark points out that there is engineering work being done outside the IETF, the AC could play a role in this. Wilfried Woeber would like to share some of his experiences with this 'flying circus': sometimes one finds out that one was part of a feedback loop. Requirement to interact with different people and groups, this is a good thing about the Internet industry self-regulation. On the issue of global policy, thinks the AC did a good start by asking the RIRs to look at each other policies and define which ones are different and why. Then this could be given back to the communities asking if they want to keep it the way, because they are used to this and it doesn't harm or if they want to put energy in it to try to make them more aligned. Carsten Schiefner wonders if there a transition plan from the established RIRs to the emerging RIRs. HPH explains that this is done in a bottom-up manner: ISPs in the area cannot be forced to either stay or move, they have to show support. Randy wonders if there will be competition between the RIRs? Mirjam: No, RIRs operate in geographic regions, it has been working well so far, they are not proposals on the table to change this. Juergen Rauschenbach notes that the IPv6 policy document still pending, because one of the communities did not agree. He wonders if additional RIRs will impose even more delay on these kinds of issues. Mirjam explains that policies are in place so that IPv6 operations are not delayed through that. SubTLAS are handed out. ARIN community set up a working group to look into the policy. Richard Jimmerson from ARIN reports from the status of the ARIN IPv6-WG. Juergen suggests to implement regional policies if one of the regional communities cannot make a decision to go along with the others. Mirjam urges everybody to try to develop globally consistent allocation policy for IPv6. The RIRs are still committed to that. She reminds the audience that the fact that some of the IPv4 allocation policies have not been aligned has created constant criticism. Lets try to avoid this in IPv6. Paul Mylotte: Presentation on global address forecast (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR) Juergen believes that both methods are flawed 1. method: H-Ratio has not taken into account Even though there are 400 million addresses still available it will be hard to push density above 116 million addresses used, currently density at about 105 - 110 millions 2. method: good numbers if the growth is staying stable. There are more factors: mobile devices, address needs in China etc. Scott Markus also comments on method 2: not on the total numbers allocated, but on the growth itself; change in the change, no change in the base. Geoff Huston for instance calculates 7% of addresses allocated Mark MacFadden acknowledges that substantial work has been done in a number of areas. Personally he believes the H-ratio is questionable. He would like to see some harmony between the work that is going on. They all relate to different things, difficult to compare. We need to bring this information together. The AC should take on this work. Scott agrees with Mark. There was a discussion among the RIRs themselves to put more effort into this, will make the base data more widely available and put more work into this. Leos Vegoda: presentation (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations.html#LIR) Wilfried wonders if we really want to go into a lot of details for such small amount of address space? Should there be a standard size of address space where one is entitled to have one without any questions asked? Joao believes that this would mean a shift from assignments based on actual need to more simplification. Gerd is in favour of giving people public addresses instead of private addresses if they don't want it. He would be happy to give everyone a /29. This would make life easier for people and would also pushes the deployment of IPv6. John Klensin notes that these kind of limits (/29 in this case) seem to be made up by magic. He advocates to be careful with looking at these numbers and to draw conclusions from them or to assume all kinds of things that might not be valid in the future. PaulW points out that this proposal has also global implications. In the APNIC region there is very rapid deployment of cable and ADSL in a number of countries. Any decision that is made here, will be used and seen as a precedent in other regions. This will increase the usage rate significantly. He suggests to still have it dependend on the network and the application, not on the technology. An assignment of a /29 to all cable and ADSL customers seem to be very dangerous and not at all necessary. HPH proposes to introduce a separate assignment window for infrastructure. Maybe together with some safeguard to review this once a year or so. Discussion will be continued on the mailing list. Finally the ASO General Assembly Meeting was announced to be held in San Francisco on 4 April 2001.
[ lir-wg Archives ]