November 2010 - address-policy-wg

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received at RIPE 60, the proposal 2006-05 was taken over by a new proposer and a new version was produced. The draft document for the new version of the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2006-05.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 November 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 16

2010-01 Last Call for Comments (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Emilio Madaio 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-10 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
by Emilio Madaio 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html Reason for withdrawal: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 61. A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-02 Last Call for Comments (Allocations from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '10

26 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-02 is going to Last Call
by Sander Steffann 26 Nov '10

26 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The Review Phase for the RIPE policy proposal 2010-02 ended on 4 November. Community feedback to the list was mainly positive. Some comments noted that the potential advantages outweigh any disadvantages, and that the major arguments against the proposal had been addressed and clarified during the AP WG session at RIPE 61. Therefore, it has been decided to move the proposal to Last Call. Sander Steffann Address Policy WG co-chair

1 0

Unique prefixes for all proposals
by Richard Hartmann 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

Hi all, I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list. One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about. The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. Possible suggestions for prefixes include: * ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal. * ripe-proposal- Unique, but long. * ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter. * ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things. * RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it. I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue. Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification. Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard

22 44

2008-07 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html The reason for withdrawal is: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Unique prefixes for all proposals
by poty＠iiat.ru 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

>> >> Well, rip-123 will always be correctly addressed as ripe-123. It's just that ripe- >> doc-1234 would could be called ripe-1234. I don't see any confusion arising >> from that and the normal document churn would take care of any potential >> confusion, anyway. >The confusion is that, for the next 25 years or so, people will be wondering what the relation is between >ripe-<foo> and ripe-doc-<bar> documents. Which one replaces which other one? >So again, please don't. A document is already have several names assigned to it (ripe-500 = Policy Development Process in RIPE) and has already put in different "categories" (Address Policy and Address Management Related Documents, Recently Published, Current Documents - concerning the ripe-500 example) and has several different meaning of access (web, ftp...). So it is not big deal to have one more "supername" near to the previous name. People who can't deal with simple understanding of "names" and "numbers" are not working with documents, explaining and regulating much more difficult and complicated things.

1 0

Agenda (second draft) for RIPE 61 in Rome
by Gert Doering 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find new draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Rome in the following three time slots: Wednesday, November 17, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, November 17, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, November 18, 09:00 - 11:30 the main change is that I had to move Nick Hilliard's policy proposals from Thursday to Wednesday (due to conflict with EIX-WG), and then had to shuffle around the rest to form something resembling a logical structure again :-) The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might 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 else, please let us know. Gert Doering -- APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) point to Axel Pawlik http://www.ripe.net/legal/Closure-of-LIR-and-deregistration-of-INRs_final-d… (ncc services WG) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio [20-30 min] - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE60 2008-07 Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources - withdrawn 2009-01 Global Policy ... Allocation of IPv4 to RIRs - accepted 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP - withdrawn 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup - accepted - brief overview over new proposals (2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07) C. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Emilio Madaio [10 min] - update on current status - how to go forward? D. Rough Edges of the current policies [30 min] Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and unintended side-effects showing up in the daily implementation of the RIPE policies. Presentation from Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC RS: o transfer policy and problems with business take-overs [problem statement] Discussion about the transfer policy issues, and what to do about it. E. More Rough Edges of the current policies [10 min] "things that have been come up in various fora" o interpretation of "utilisation threshold" in IPv6 policy regarding /48 and /56s - proposal by Arno Meulenkamp for wording cleanup: "It might be good to rephrase the text to "Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of assigned address space in units of /56 blocks." (5.2.1, discussion on ipv6-ops(a)cluenet.de) [came up in discussion on the ipv6-ops list, presentation by Gert Doering] o "end site" definition - RIPE 481, 2.9 2 ADSL links, not connected networks, same legal organization -> is there a conflict or not? 1 /48 or 2? do we need to change the policy / clarify the policy text? [came up in discussion between the WG chairs, presentation by Sander Steffann, discussion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Discussion of open policy proposals, not "PI related" 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies [15 min] (Nick Hilliard) [ONGOING] H. Discussion of open policy proposals, "PI related" 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [15 min] (Nick Hilliard) [ONGOING / REVIVED] 2010-07 Ambiguity cleanup on IPv6 Address Space Policy for IXP [10 min] (presentation by Sergi Polischuk) [NEW policy proposal] I. Even More Rough Edges of the current policies [45 min] o definition of "openness" in the IPv6 EIX policy initiated by 2010-07, but widening the scope from "wording change" to "figure out what the policy should be, *then* talk about specific wording" [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] o generic IPv6 PI discussion(?) Presentation from Alex Le Heux from the NCC RS on PI "background info": o PI size distribution and its history (growing assignments) [background info] o IPv6 PI vs. IPv4 PI - background data [background info] differences between IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI are being discussed since RIPE 59 - but no specific proposals on the table yet. Is there a need to change the policy, or is it "mostly fine"? [presentation by Gert Doering, discussion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (part II) 2010-05 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA [15 min] post exhaustion (Jason Schiller et. al.) [NEW policy proposal] mudfight between ARIN CEO and whoever feels like it [15 min] 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders [15 min] (Nigel Titley, CA TF - version 2 update) [ONGOING] 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 [15 min] (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron) [ONGOING] Y. 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) o Martin Hannigan / Jason Schiller: proposal about Inter-RIR transfers Z. AOB -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? 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

1 0

2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-452,"Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 10 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Update on global policy ripe-497
by Emilio Madaio 09 Nov '10

09 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, We would like to update you on the status of RIPE Policy ripe-497 (ex proposal 2009-01), "Global Policy for the Allocation of the IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries". Recently, ICANN announced that the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) Executive Council (NRO EC) deemed the global policy proposal "Global Policy for the Allocation of the IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" abandoned. This was in view of version differences in the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The ICANN announcement is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm The full text of the policy, ripe-497, is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-497.html Best regards, Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-08 Review Period extended until 22 November (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Emilio Madaio 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The Review Phase of the proposal 2008-08 has ended. During this review phase no comments were received. Hence the Review Period has been extended until 22 November 2010. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal 2010-2
by Milton L Mueller 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

> And even there're some economical implications, the proposal itself > isn't primary about money and cost of IPv4 address, this is technical > proposal. It's about address distribution to new and existing LIRs. As long as addresses are scarce, there is no such thing as a purely technical allocation proposal. Any allocation mechanism involves a competitive relationship among LIRs for available resources, and any policy distributes costs and benefits among the contending parties. > And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space > for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over > IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free > allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible. I agree with this concern, but you seem unaware of the possibilities of strategic behavior by LIRs. Consider: LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1? Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses? Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2.

5 8