March 2008 - address-policy-wg

Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 12 Mar '08

12 Mar '08

I've been looking at policy proposal 2007-08 about transfering addresses between LIRs directly. I'm not sure what the current status of this is, but it is one of a family of similar proposals before ARIN and APNIC. In the other RIRs, people who support this type of transfer proposal seem to consider it to be the first step towards trading in IP address contracts, i.e. creating a market for buying and selling contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I've been reading through the MiFID directives and some of the English language material covering MiFID, trying to figure out whether these IP address contracts would fall under the MiFID guidelines. Of course, EU guidelines are not the same as laws, and the laws in this area enable a regulator, who then goes on to make regulations. I have come to the conclusion that the Dutch law is the one that is most likely to currently apply, since RIPE is run out of Amsterdam and since the policy proposal calls on RIPE to register these transfers. My knowledge of the Germanic languages is not good enough to really make sense of the Dutch legislation. I wonder if someone who speaks Dutch, or who is a native speaker of German or a Scandinavian language, could have a look at the text of the Dutch law here <http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0490_Wet_financiele_dienstverlening_Wfd.htm> to see if the definitions cover the sale of contracts which give the right to use IP addresses. I'm pretty sure that "effect" in Article 1(i) defines what is a "security" but since MiFID has a lot of text about which kind of organizations and activities are covered by the new rules, I suspect you would need to read more than the definition of this one term. Since many people seem to have a vision of an IP address trading market that functions similar to a securities market like Euronext, I think that we need some proper legal guidance that tells us the boundaries for RIPE policy. If we step over those boundaries, then the MiFID rules will apply to everything that we do with IPv4 address allocations. --Michael Dillon

3 3

Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 11 Mar '08

11 Mar '08

I see that the review phase for this proposal ends in a few days. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html I would like to speak in favour of allowing end users to get a minimum of a /24 allocation when routing is an issue. For instance, a customer with an application running out of a data centre has their own AS number and wants to get PI space from RIPE. Since data centres typically hide their architecture using RFC 1918 space behind NAT and load balancers, etc., it doesn't make sense to allocate a longer prefix just because their publicly visible machines fit in less than a /24. For instance, if RIPE were to allocate a /26 (64 addresses) rather than a /24 (256 addresses), the number of addresses saved is only 192 which is such a small number that it cannot be considered significant on the larger scale. The issue of routing table slots is irrelevant since the End User intends to announce their prefix whatever its length is. I don't believe that there is any advantage to conserving such small amounts of space. Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same time. That seems reasonable. ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dillon RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design 66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 Internet: michael.dillon(a)bt.com Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030 http://www.btradianz.com Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/

3 2

2007-01 Draft Documents Published (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Mar '08

09 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The draft documents for the proposal described in 2007-01 have been published. Please note that this is a new version of the proposal. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR) or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Numbers, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6 address space, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments cannot be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html and the draft documents at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-256-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft documents and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 3 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2008-03 New Policy Proposal (2007-06 and 2007-07 are withdrawn)
by Filiz Yilmaz 03 Mar '08

03 Mar '08

PDP Number: 2008-03 Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received during RIPE 55, the proposers of proposals 2007-06 and 2007-07 withdrew them and jointly created a new one. This proposal is now published and available for discussion. The proposal describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 3 March 2008. Withdrawn proposals are archived and can still be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-07.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-06.html Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 1