[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
Wilfried Woeber Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Mon Feb 4 15:26:03 CET 2013
Daniel Stolpe wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 24/01/2013 13:33, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >>> The text of the policy proposal 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy >>> Internet Resource Holders", has been revised based on the community >>> feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new >>> version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set >>> for the proposal. >> >> >> ok, I'll bite. >> >> in general, this is a vast improvement on v1.0 and I think it could >> feasibly form the basis of a working policy, but there are still some >> shortcomings and omissions which need to be dealt with. > > > In general yes. Well done so far. > >> LRH == legacy resource holder >> >> minor nits: >> >> - 1.0 introduction: some legacy resources were assigned by the InterNIC >> after the creation of the RIPE NCC, so it is incorrect to define LRHs as >> those who "were granted internet resources before the creation of the >> RIPE >> NCC". A similar comment applies to the definition given in 1.1. > > > Might seem minor but the definition certainly has to be correct. True. I propose to turn the logic around, i.e. resources not obtained by way of an RIR, because the initial set of 3 RIRs were not born on the same date :-) Incidentally, the RIPE NCC was the first one to exist. >> - section 3.0: contractual requirements: I don't understand why there >> is a >> suggested contractual requirement to acknowledge that the terms and >> conditions of the original assignment are outside the scope of the new >> contractual arrangement, unless (straw man) someone can provide a copy of >> those T&Cs. I.e. this is probably unenforceable. I dunno. Looks odd >> to me. >> >> - 4.0: "in cast the situation corresponds to section 2.5 above" - perhaps >> the authors may have omitted section 2.6? >> >> larger grievances: >> >> - I don't believe that there is a requirement for section 2.4. >> Disregarding that the RIPE NCC has ended the possibility of directly >> assigned resources for general PI holders (which I think has direct >> relevance to this), I don't accept that a legacy resource holder couldn't >> find one out of the current 8800 RIPE NCC members that wouldn't be >> appropriate for a sponsorship contract. Well, the LRHs are a mixed crowd out there, and some will indeed have (legal and logistical) problems to sign a contract with an LIR (or the NCC) > It does sound odd that when we are going away from the direct relation > between the RIPE NCC and end users we are suggesting new relationships > of the same kind. > > Find an LIR or become one. That should be enough. Yes, in the vast majority of cases, but we may be faced with a few deadlock cases. Thus I do support the escape path. >> - section 2.5: you can't be serious? "due to specific enduring or >> temporary circumstances"?? This is a carte-blanche for any LRH to ignore >> this policy until the heat death of the universe. Yes, in this version. But let us take the initial steps into the right direction asap and then have a look at where we got, and how quickly. > I feel a bit lost here. What circumstances are we talking about? > >> - there is probably a requirement for the LRHs to provide some form of >> formal identification about who they are and why they have a claim on the >> resources they claim to hold. For sure, the RIPE NCC cannot certify >> resources without a reasonable level of due diligence. Yes, although in reality, the -technically- most credible proof of existence and identity is to look at the connectivity and use for those resources. We are trying to roll back transactions that happened 20+ years ago. Back then, the "documentation" and/or "proof of existence" were a phone call, an email over a set of protocols that didn't even use IP(v4) yet,... :-) > This is usually the biggest obstacle in my experience. We regularly help > LRH:s with these matters and I think there should be clearer definitions > of the paper work needed for identification. We are often talking about > events 15-20 years back and since many LRH:s are large corporate groups > they have often changed names and structure a few times since and now > they have no idea what documentation to provide to prove they are > acually the same entity. The NCC will need a good deal of flexibility and accept different types of "indications", rather than a complete trail of legal paperwork. In some cases it simply will not exist. >> - the proposed policy does not touch on the subject of transfer of >> resources to third parties. I think this should be dealt with, and that >> the RIPE NCC should be required to accept any transfer of resources to >> third parties. >> >> - I'd like to see a requirement for publication of sponsorship details. This seems like a good idea, and iirc is dicussed already under a different headline. >> - the proposed policy does not touch on the subject of deregistration. I >> believe that it is important to deal with this, as otherwise the RIPE >> community has no mechanism for garbage collection of resources. The >> alternative is for the RIPE community to believe that the current set of >> LHRs will continue to exist until the fall of civilisation and that in >> this >> period, they will continue to be the canonical holders of the relevant >> resources. Not credible. >> >> As a subset of this issue, the following sub-issues arise: >> >> - there are no terms to deal with what the RIPE NCC should do with >> the >> resources in the situation where they are deregistered via whatever >> mechanism. I would suggest the IANA free pool. >> >> - there are no terms to deal with the eventuality that a LRH might >> want to >> voluntarily deregister the resources. >> >> - there are no terms to deal with the eventuality that all LRHs will >> eventually cease to exist, whether through bankruptcy, being forgotten, >> death, winding up, petition, etc. >> >> - the root contention with this policy still remains: what happens to >> those organisations who decline to pay a registration payment and who >> decline to sign any contract? This policy proposal fails to establish a >> quid pro quo in this situation. The RIPE NCC does not operate on a zero >> cost basis, and it is only fair that those who depend on its registration >> services be required to pay for this. I can understand that many LRHs >> will >> have an idealogical objection to this but as King Lear said, "nothing >> will >> come of nothing". >> >> suggestions: >> >> - the RIPE NCC understands PA & PI address blocks. Would it be sensible >> from a service atomicity/equivalence point of view to suggest that >> LRHs who >> are RIPE NCC members receive exactly the same services as PA address >> holders (after due diligence on identity performed), and that LRH >> resources >> handled by sponsoring LIR be provided with the same services as PI >> address >> space? >> >> - ASNs are the same for everyone, so it would probably be useful to >> declare >> that any LRH ASN will receive the same service level as any RIPE >> NCC-assigned ASN (obviously given suitable contractual link between >> resource holder and the RIPE NCC). >> >> Nick > > > > On the whole, very well put Nick. > > > Best Regards, > > Daniel Stolpe [ Wearing my hats as LIR manager and employeein the IT department of a University which is itself an LHR ]: While there are still minor improvements to make, I support the proposal. I'd also like to suggest to deal with the management of deregistered or voluntarily returned resources form a higher vantage point, rather than within the framework of a/this special purpose policy. Best regards, Wilfried.