October 2008 - address-policy-wg

2008-05 New Policy Proposal (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 10 Apr '09

10 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Ondřej Surý 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Hello everybody, I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD. First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable. Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC. And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list. 1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------

6 9

2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

10 10

2008-07 New Policy Proposal (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Oct '08

28 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-09 ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-09.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

21 28

New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Oct '08

27 Oct '08

Hi all, According to the discussion in the list and the inputs received in the afternoon presentation, here is the draft text which is being also officially submitted to the WG chairs. As usual, inputs are welcome ! Regards, Jordi RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-01 - v4.0 Summary of Proposal: This policy is intended to provide a solution for organisations that need IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments. Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content providers). Draft Policy Text: Qualification for an IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment: To qualify for a direct assignment, the End User must have a contract with a sponsoring LIR or a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, as detailed in the policy proposal 2007-01. The PI assignment can¹t be further assigned to other organisations. PI IPv6 Assignment Size to End User Organisations: The minimum size of the assignment is /48. However, a larger assignment (shorter prefix) can be provided if duly documented and justified. Subsequent Assignment Size to End User Organisations: Whenever possible, further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if duly documented and justified. Assignment 'Super Block': Assignments will be allocated from a separate 'super block' to facilitate filtering practices. Rationale: a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal In IPv4, there are organisations that qualify for a PI allocation, or that could opt to become an LIR. This may be because they need either to be Multihomed or have other administrative or technical reasons for needing a portable addressing block. This is currently not the case for IPv6, and is perceived as a clear barrier for deployment of IPv6 in some organisations. This policy proposal addresses that barrier by means of providing a direct assignment from the RIPE NCC. Any organisation receiving such an assignment would not be allowed to make further assignments to other external organisations, but instead only to assign subnets internally within their own facilities. The RIPE NCC can¹t force routing decision on people, but the RIPE NCC can help people making educated choices about their routing filters by assigning IPv6 PI /48s from a well-documented super block¹. Experience from other regions shows that routing of /48s that are clearly marked as direct assignments¹ works well. By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an unfair situation among different regions, and meet the needs of any organisation that required PI address space. All organisations that opt for this PI, will be in an equal position once the community agrees a long-term technical solution and will have to either move to this new solution or become an LIR, if they qualify. Newcomers will also be in the same position. Some organisations will not opt for PI under this policy because they do not need it. This would avoid placing them in an unfair situation. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal The possible effect of this proposal is a growth of global routing tables to levels that, together with the existing and forecast IPv4 routing entries, could create significant issues for operators unless vendors can provide products that address such issues. Even if such technical solutions were found, the proposal could still have a major impact on the cost and/or depreciation period for infrastructure investments. It is expected that organisations requesting an IPv6 PI prefix under this policy, which may need in the future a standard PA block, will apply for that according to existing policies and will need to renumber. ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

Some observations on the differences in the various transfer policy proposals
by Geoff Huston 24 Oct '08

24 Oct '08

Hi, At the ARIN meeting last week the question arose as to why the various policy proposals related to address transfers in the different RIRs were so different. I made some comments in response to this question from my perspective and then I had some followup questions mailed to me, so I thought maybe there is some value in writing my perspective up. If you are interested its at: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2008-11/transfers.html thanks, Geoff Huston DIsclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, again!

2 2

Suggestion: charging for IPv4 space
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 23 Oct '08

23 Oct '08

All: Although I am not representing any registry and although this is my first post here, I have been reading through the archives of address-policy-wg and found a lot of the "usual suspects". This is not criticism, on the contrary, I think it's great that people are taking part in the discussions in each part of the world, but I do apologise to those who have already read my proposal below. I am sending here, in the hope that there might be some who haven't read it yet & who might wish to comment. Indeed, I am consulting each RIR discussion list separately, because I feel there might be local & cultural issues specific to each region. I might be wrong. Please don't shoot me. For one, I see the discussion about Millions of IP addresses lying idle having made it here as well & similar feedback wrt to it being flawed. However, I have also seen a lot about IPv4 address re-allocation but very little about IPv6 migration. So... Through discussions I've had with dozens of people (some of whom are reading this message), I have noticed the following: - currently, neither IPv4 nor IPv6 address delegation are directly linked to any kind of significant recurent *annual* fee; - some ISPs are considering introducing IPv6 connectivity to customers *for a premium* rather than IPv4 (yes, sadly, it's true); - we've had 10+ years of slogan "we are running out of IPv4 addresses" and this has not "hit the spot" to get a transitional process going; - sadly, there is a lack of IPv6 "killer ap" to promote the use of IPv6 over IPv4; - availability of several IPv6 "islands" exist on the Internet, with very poor "trans-island" connectivity (although I am told that this is s-l-o-w-l-y improving - and that's good news); - a lot of stigmas are associated with IPv6 (our customers do not request it; there is no demand; etc.) Clearly, we could all go on talking for another 10 years about IPv6. But we don't have 10 years. So what's the hurdle? Let's be fair, folks, it all boils down to a question of *money*. v4 to v6 transition is seen as an expensive exercise. Darn, with hardware, software & training, transition is expensive! Had it been cheap, we wouldn't be in the *utter mess* that we are in today because it would have been a natural thing to do. So we are going to run out of "greenfield IPv4" addresses by, say, 25 Dec 2010. Or earlier. Or later. Whatever. What we know is that we'll run out. <Boom>. IPv4 addresses will become a limited commodity. Speculators are going to step in, and they are likely to do it at a shockingly fast speed. (eg. Cantel & Siegel's Green Card Lottery announced mass spamming; the sex.com case announced the worth of domain names). My suggestion (and others have already touched on the idea) is therefore to engage a study of the following "positive discrimination" proposal: 1. Introducing a *recurrent annual* cost-element to IPv4 addresses, the reason behind it being: making v6 cheaper to run than v4. This could be a small cost to start with, increasing significantly but steadily along a scale for the next few years. This should act more as a *deterrent* for the use of IPv4 in the future than as a "tax" to be paid now. Heck, it might even start cleaning up IPv4 space and giving us more time to transit to v6 through the release of more IPv4 space! Those effects are hard to predict. 2. Building a v4 to v6 neutral & non-for-profit transition fund from the IPv4 revenue. This fund could finance/subsidise the following: a. the initial bridging of the IPv6 islands until those would be able to fly commercially b. IPv6 tech training c. any other project that would trigger/help v4 to v6 transition If we do not make IPv6 more interesting financially, we risk failure to transit smoothly. This will cause a *much greater problem* than Domain speculation since IP addressing constitutes the very fabric of the Internet: 1. Panic in operators who might then try and grab as much v4 space as possible, thus compounding the problem; 2. Panic transition from v4 to v6 which will completely forego the transition testing period which Peter Kirstein (UCL London) has mentioned many times, thus introducing instability in the Internet; 3. A lack of fully qualified technicians & engineers to run IPv6 networks; 4. A "free" market for IPv4 addresses where prices quickly spiral out of control. I am trying to look for a solution which will ease the shock by instead smoothly raising prices. A totally unregulated increase is to be feared. The rate of increase might have a greater impact than the price itself - see oil prices if you're not convinced: we can "survive" with oil at $140 a barrel, but we are hurt by the price going quickly from $70 a barrel to $140. It messes the world's economy up because it changes the balance at once in all of our business models. I don't believe in self-regulation by the market - it opens itself to serious abuse, in the same way Wall Street bankers abused the system and look where this led us? IPv4 is a *serious* show-stopper wrt the Internet's future development. The Internet we are seeing today is still primarily accessed by computers but tomorrow, and tomorrow isn't far away, we're going to see increased use by mobile devices. There are also now several commercial products out there to access your home PC remotely. Next on the tab is the concept of having a home multimedia server that can be accessed remotely. And then we fall into consumer electronics - new TVs are now all digital-enabled & the rest of the "home entertainment" system is quickly becoming all digital. The "young generations" do not know CDs - their music travels on digital music players & laptops. And then comes the "Network of things" where sensors will talk to each other. This is just about to hit us, and our dinosaur IPv4 will be as suited to this as the steam engine is to the modern hydrid car. IPv6 will enable us to have cheap devices all connected to the Internet. With instability creeping in the system, we risk several high profile technical failures with repercussions not dissimilar to the current failures in the banking sector. Do we really want this? I shall be going to the ICANN Cairo conference and would be happy to discuss these matters in person. Come on, let's do something about this impending doom. I've lived the DOTCOM boom years and met with teenagers who told me they were going to conquer the world - *and they did*. IPv6 has the ability to infuse a breath of life in Internetting & the Internet Economy worldwide - on every continent. Seize the day. Don't wait until someone tells you that you've failed. Sorry for the length of the message & thanks for reading, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl(a)gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 4

2007-08 Review Period extended until 4 November 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2007-08 has been extended until 4 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2007-01 Proposal Accepted (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2007-01 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Information regarding the implementation of the proposal at the RIPE NCC will follow. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

DRAFT agenda for RIPE address policy WG in Dubai
by Gert Doering 22 Oct '08

22 Oct '08

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Dubai in the following 4(!) time slots: Monday, Oct 27, 16:00-18:00 Tuesday, Oct 28, 09:00-10:30 and 11:00-12:30 Wednesday, Oct 29, 09:00-10:30 Since the APWG sessions at the last RIPE meetings had to be a bit rushed, we have been given plenty of time on this meeting to discuss ongoing policy changes and new ideas that might come up in detail. The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might need to move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, 16:00-18:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Overview over concluded protocols 15 min 2007-09 Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool - withdrawn 2008-01 Assinging IPv6 PI to every INETNUM holder - withdrawn 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to every LIR - withdrawn 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space (N=1) - Accepted [short update from the NRO NC on the global status] 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC (the "contract framework" proposal) [assuming it will pass WG chairs last call until then] C. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz [30 min] D. New Proposals since RIPE 56 overview about what's coming [10 min] E. Discussion of open policy proposals, grouped by similarity of topic --- PI and special-case address space related --- 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM [20 min] Presentation by Ian Meikle (5-10 min) discussion 2006-01 Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End User... [20 min] 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [20 min] 2007-05 ULA-Central [5 min] (Waiting for IETF to pick up ULA-Central, which does not seem to be happening, so the chairs suggest to withdraw this proposal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back, and continuation of the "PI and special-case" topics [5 min] <informal> "IPv6 Resources for RIPE meetings" presentation by Andrei Robachevsky + discussion [20 min] --- end of IPv4 session (1) --- Presentation by Tom Vest [30 min] "Running on Empty: The Challenge of managing Internet addresses" (http://tprcweb.com/files/Lehr%20Vest%20Lear%20Internet%20Address%20TPRC%208…) 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources [30-45 min] (the "market" proposal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end of IPv4 session (2) --- 2008-06 Phil Smith (1) - Usage of final /8 [25 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-062-v002.txt) 2008-07 Phil Smith (2) - Efficienct use of historical IPv4 res. [25 min] (see also http://www.apnic.net/policy/discussions/prop-066-v004.txt) --- cross-WG material --- 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [15 min?] CA-TF, presentation by Nigel Titley, + Discussion 2008-?? James Spenceley - "on the format of 4-byte AS numbers" [20 min] (presentation + discussion, touching DB WG and routing WG) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) F1 Daniel Karrenberg [15 min] G. RIPE policy document reworking/rewording project at the RIPE NCC - short presentation - feedback from the WG "is this a good idea?" H. RIPE policy process - more participation! - "do we need/want RIPE member polls"? - other ideas? I. RIPE policy development process - deadlines? - cut-off time for new proposals before upcoming RIPE meetings? - problem statement & getting feedback from the WG Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Oct '08

20 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2007-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. As a result a new Review Phase is set for the proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html and the draft RIPE Document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08-v3.html We encourage you to read the revised proposal and the draft document, and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 16 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

28 67

Millions of Internet Addresses Are Lying Idle
by Jeffrey A. Williams 17 Oct '08

17 Oct '08

All, Seems that all the hub bub regarding IPv4 address space being very limited is really not so. As I and others have advocated for years, reclaiming unused IPv4 space is needed. See: The most comprehensive scan of the entire internet for several decades http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21528/ shows that millions of allocated addresses simply aren't being used. Professor John Heidemann from the University of Southern California (USC) used ICMP and TCP to scan the internet. Even though the last IPv4 addresses will be handed out in a couple of years, his survey reveals that many of the addresses allocated to big companies and institutions are lying idle. Heidemann says: 'People are very concerned that the IPv4 address space is very close to being exhausted. Our data suggests that maybe there are better things we should be doing in managing the IPv4 address space.' So, is it time to reclaim those unused addresses before the IPv6 crunch?" Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

6 9

2008-08 New Policy Proposal (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

ETNO Contribution on IP Addressing in a Post IPv4 World Reallocation of resources
by Kelaidi Christina 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

Dear colleagues I am forwarding ETNO Position on the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal. ETNO supports this Policy Proposal, but requests for a clarification to be included. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ETNO has considered the new version of the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, submitted for discussion in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. ETNO believes this revised version that provides for additional criteria to demonstrate the need for an LIR to receive IPv4 addresses trough transfer, is significantly improved. Therefore ETNO will support this Policy Proposal. Still there are outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. 1. Introduction ETNO members have carefully reviewed the new version of the RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-08 related to the "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", which proposes to use inter-LIR transfer mechanisms. This new version of the proposal has been examined in light of the principles expressed in the two previous ETNO position papers circulated in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list (CP082 - 2007/10, and EC097 2008/05 publicly available also at www.etno.be, Position Papers 2007/2008). ETNO welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this new version. 2. ETNO analysis and comments The major change between Version 2 and Version 3 of the policy proposal is the requirement for the receiving LIR to have their need evaluated by the RIPE-NCC before a transfer can be completed. ETNO believes that this requirement is necessary in order to avoid speculative behaviours. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but would like to propose for a clarification to be included in the proposal. ETNO suggests that following the text of the proposal: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC", the following text should be inserted: "The transfer should be formally approved by the RIPE-NCC". 3. Outstanding considerations ETNO has outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. It should be mentioned that these considerations do not impact the approval of the current policy proposal. 1. ETNO believes that reclamation by the RIRs of allocated but unused addresses can offer a way to reuse IPv4 blocks of addresses. In the future, what impact will this new policy have on any reclamation activity? Is it possible to reconcile the reclamation activity from historic, legacy space and the procedures for inter-LIR transfer? 2. Since the significant volume of allocated but unused addresses resides in the historic, legacy space and these addresses are generally not maintained by Local Internet Registries, what will be the impact of this policy proposal? In the future will it be a requirement that the donor be an LIR even in the situation where legacy space is being transferred? Such a requirement could be counter productive to reintroduce unused legacy space in the RIR/LIR management. 3. Given the limited scope of the policy, does this proposal have a significant impact on the availability of additional IPv4 addresses prior to exhaustion of the pools of "fresh" IPv4 addresses from IANA? 4. Conclusion ETNO is positive to any flexibility that could provide a limited amount of IPv4 addresses, and can help the transition to IPv6, but believes that this will not solve the broad issue if IPv4 exhaust and should not distract ISPs and operators from finding appropriate and long term solutions to maintaining a stable Internet. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but has requested for a clarification to be included.

2 1

Paul Krugman on bad equilibriums
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

I've just been reading a paper by Paul Krugman who recently won the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. The paper is entitled "Supply, Demand, and English Food" but I think it explains what has gone wrong with IPv6 some 10 years after it was developed. Here's a relevant quotation: But the history of English food suggests that even on so basic a matter as eating, a free-market economy can get trapped for an extended period in a bad equilibrium in which good things are not demanded because they have never been supplied, and are not supplied because not enough people demand them. --Michael Dillon

2 1

2008-05 Discussion Phase extended until 12 November 2008 (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Phase for the proposal 2008-05 has been extended until 12 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-8 discussions
by Milton L Mueller 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

Some random reactions to the puzzling statements from transfer opponents > -----Original Message----- Responses Gert Doering: > (If, OTOH, you're right and everbody will go to IPv6 right away, then > I don't see why 2007-08 would do *harm*) Precisely right. If the v6 option is viable and better, then people will use it. V4 transfers are an insurance policy to get us through the transition period, which could be 5 years or 50 years. Responses to Michael Dillon: > Publicly traded companies do not have the luxury of sitting > on their hands and waiting until the IPv4 address crisis hits. > They have to be prepared, and as a result, there will be very > few buyers in a future IPv4 address market. There are two related predictions here. One is that the v6 migration will go smoothly. The other is that there will be no market for v4. Both are empirical predictions, about which you may be right or wrong. Suppose you are right. If so, the availability of IPv4 transfer markets does no harm because no one uses them or needs them. Suppose you are wrong. Then, the need for IPv4 is heightened and prolonged, and we will be very sorry we didn't create a smooth and above-board mechanism for transfers. > Statistically speaking > there will likely be a few companies who did not plan adequately > and who run out in desperation to buy IPv4 addresses. But we > should not be making policies to cater to these few companies. Umm, why not? And how do you _know_ that it is a "few"? > 2007-08 is the first step to treating IP addresss as freehold > assets which can be bought and sold. If RIPE changes the status > of IPv4 addresses, then IPv6 addresses will also become assets > which must be accounted for on the balance sheet. I think that > a court would decide that 2007-08 and any future transfer policies > override the statement on freehold status in the IPv6 policy. I'm afraid this is a completely bogus prediction about the action of courts, made by a non-lawyer, with no specification of which legal system/courts he is talking about, nor the legal grounds upon which such a decision would be based, or what kind of litigation would put the issue into the courts to begin with. I would not venture to make any predictions about courts, but as someone with economics background I can say that the difference between resources that are available at zero price or a flat administrative/membership fee (e.g., v6 addresses) and those that are priced in the market (e.g., v4 addresses in the future) is quite fundamental and I don't see why the pricing of one would affect the valuation of the other or how any court could fail to take that into account. Recall also that this is contractual governance so if RIPE contracts say that one type of address is transferable and another then that's the way things are. The auctioning of mobile spectrum in the U.S. has not forced broadcasters, who got their spectrum for free, to account for their spectrum holdings according to a projected market value. However (in line with the predictions of those who see gray/black markets developing in v4 if no transfers are authorized) it is well known for decades that the value of spectrum is captured when broadcasters sell their station licenses to another company. Oddly, station transmission facilities that cost tens of thousands of dollars, when coupled with a license that costs a small regulatory fee, routinely sell for hundreds of millions. > Internet sites from one of the larger ISPs. The price for IPv6 > addresses is predictable (zero) and the price for the IPv6 service > will also be predictable since it is being sold in a competitive > market. It is highly likely that ISPs will offer IPv6 connectivity at This is just weird. If v4 addresses are sold in a competitive market, you call them "unpredictable." But you call the price of v6 service "predictable" because....it is sold in a competitive market. > a lower price than IPv4 connnectivity because it reduces the pressure > on their legacy IPv4 infrastructure. Sure, they'll sell access to 1/10th of the internet for less than the price of 100% access. What you may not be taking into account is the universal connectivity associated with v4.

6 6

RE:[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Kelaidi Christina 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

I am annoyed with the e-mails continually being circulated to the RIPE address policy mailing list regarding ETNO participation in the policy process. It is regretful that ETNO processes (driven by the members of ETNO), that relate to the thinking and discussing of issues before they are submitted to a mailing list that makes decisions about policy proposals which impact the future of the internet in the RIPE region, might stir such discussions. It also regretful that the substance behind ETNO's points that have been thought deeply by representatives of ETNO and who believe in the bottom up processes of the RIR internet community is not the focus of the discussion. ETNO members might be companies with large LIRs, but on the other hand ETNO members have felt the impact of processes and policies being imposed top down by regulators and therefore cherish the bottom up processes of the RIPE community. ETNO follows through its members, who are represented by individual experts, RIPE discussions and have actively participated in address policy discussions in the past. In particular ETNO participated in the discussions regarding this proposal because its members wanted to ensure that the issue of the impact of this proposed policy on the internet community as a whole was understood from all aspects; an impact that cannot be clearly understood by those who just type before thinking. I am sorry that I have had to write this e-mail and I hope that I will not have to do so again in the future. Finally, ETNO has considered this new version of this proposal and will post its opinion to the RIPE list separately; having ensured that it has followed the bottom-up processes defined by its members. Christina Kelaidi Chairperson, ETNO Numbering, Addressing and Naming WG

7 6

HA: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

> > I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the > > matters *here* > > - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. > > Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for > all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? > > --Michael Dillon I'm worrying why somebody-1 have to ask somebody-2 to participate in somebody-1's policy process? RIPE maintains the list to get pros and cons and do the policy making process. All members, regardless of their participation in any other organizations, have in the list equal rights to voice. That's the RIPE's rule. And... when in Rome do as the Romans do. ETNO is one of the organizations in the RIPE region, and even not the biggest one I think. If they have something to say - let them say it. (You can't say that ETNO doesn't have the possibility). If they do not want to reveal their internal thoughts - let them do that too. (I think it is the state we have now) Vladislav Potapov Technical Director IIAT, Ltd. e-mail: poty(a)iiat.ru tel: +7 (495) 251-01-64 fax: +7 (495) 250-81-88  <script type="text/javascript" src="http://download.skype.com/share/skypebuttons/js/skypeCheck.js"></sc ript> <a href="skype:p-i-n-o-k-i-o?call"><img src="http://mystatus.skype.com/smallclassic/p-i-n-o-k-i-o" style="border: none;" width="114" height="20" alt="My status" /></a>

1 0