November 2008 - address-policy-wg

2007-08 Last Call for Comments (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Ana Matic 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-08 (version 4.0) is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 08 December 2008. Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

Policy proposal 2007-08 will go to Last Call
by Sander Steffann 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

The RIPE Address Policy Working Group chairs have decided to move policy proposal 2007-08 to Last Call. This policy proposal has been discussed on the mailing list since 23 October 2007. Version 2 of this proposal was published on 18 March 2008, and version 3 has been published on 18 September 2008. In the last review phase version 3 of this proposal was discussed. Each version used the feedback on the previous version from the community. Most of the objections to version 2 of the proposal have been handled in version 3. There were three remaining objections after version 3 was published: 1) This policy will give IPv4 addresses financial value This subject has been discussed on the mailing list. The feeling was that IPv4 addresses already have financial value, but there was no proof for this. Remco van Mook has demonstrated that there are organizations that will pay money for IPv4 addresses, which proves that the financial value already exists. 2) There will be no market for IPv4 address In the same presentation Remco van Mook has shown that there are currently both sellers and buyers for IPv4 addresses, which proves the existence of such a market. 3) Reclaim/reuse is more efficient than transfering Alex Le Heux from RIPE NCC has provided statistics on the amount of IPv4 addresses that have been reclaimed. These statistics show that the amount of addresses that are effectively reclaimed (instead of returned to the NCC in exchange for a bigger allocation) is negligible. The current version of this proposal is version 4, which only has a minor change to close a potential loophole in version 3: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC" is changed to "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC". Because the change is so small, we have chosen not to go to the Review phase again. Because all objections to this proposal have been handled and because of the strong support that has been shown we feel confident that we can declare consensus and move this proposal to Last Call. Sander Steffann Address Policy Working Group co-chair

1 0

Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
by Krzysztof Olesik 04 Nov '08

04 Nov '08

Hello, > 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. As for .pl, we support the idea. In the future we would like to have another anycast cloud run in co-operation with other ccTLD. Best regards, Krzysztof Olesik NASK

1 0