July 2013 - address-policy-wg

2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 22 Aug '13

22 Aug '13

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 19 August 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 19

2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Aug '13

12 Aug '13

Dear colleagues, The second version of the draft document for the policy proposal 2013-03 has been published, along with an impact analysis carried out by the RIPE NCC. Noteworthy changes in this version include: - Text that suggested contractual requirements are only "recommended" for PI space (section 7.0) has been removed. This text was dependent on previously established context discussing PI vs PA space. As version 1.0 of the proposal removed the PI discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the resulting lack of context made the sentence confusing. The statement was also incorrect, as contractual requirements have been mandatory for PI space since 2007-01 was accepted. - Additional wording has been added to explicitly state that PI space cannot be reassigned or further assigned to other parties (see section 7.0 for ASSIGNED PI). - The third point from the last /8 policy (section 5.1) has been removed, as this is considered a meaningless circular reference by the author. - General re-wording in some sections for improved readability. - The policy proposal 2012-03 has been withdrawn, so the related argument against the proposal has been removed from the rationale. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 The draft document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 July 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

36 138

Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
by andrea 11 Aug '13

11 Aug '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has seen an increase in the number of organisations requesting to change the status of IP addresses from "assigned PI" to "allocated PA". At the Address Policy WG session during RIPE 66, we requested guidance from the RIPE community on what we should do with these requests. Together with the Address Policy WG Chairs, we have decided to seek additional input from the WG mailing list. Background: the requests to turn PI assignments into PA allocations are coming from organisations that received a PI assignment in the past and have since become LIRs. These requests may also come from LIRs that have taken over End User organisations with PI addresses. PA allocations have more flexibility than PI assignments. With the scarcity of IPv4 addresses, organisations are looking to use this space for customer assignments or to transfer it, but are prevented from doing so by the policy for PI addresses. Problem: current RIPE Policy does not address the change in status from assigned PI to allocated PA. At RIPE 66, the RIPE NCC suggested the following potential solutions: A. Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments to PA allocations (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size) B. Do not allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments to PA allocations Please find the RIPE Meeting slides at the following url: https://ripe66.ripe.net/presentations/176-Address_Policy_WG_RIPE_66.pdf Thank you in advance for your feedback Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

28 38

Policy proposal 2013-03
by alain.bidron＠orange.com 31 Jul '13

31 Jul '13

I object to the policy proposal 2013-03 2013- No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up. I will not reiterate the arguments developed by Michele during the meeting in Dublin and on this list, and those clearly explained by Malcom. I agree with both of them. This proposal is in no way a post depletion adjustment, and clean up, it would dramatically change the basic principle in IPv4 management and would have a very strong impact on local management. Rather than simplifying the local management, it would make it even more difficult as the core principle is that existing and future assignments are based on needs. If this core principle is not part of the consistent set of policies to be applied by the LIRs, any management decision at local level would be questionable. We introduce here some instability, with potential impact on LIRs responsibilities. On the political side the consequences would also be quite problematic. Regards. Alain _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

Assignment window vs allocated space vs "bought" IP space?
by Roger Jørgensen 29 Jul '13

29 Jul '13

Earlier today a friend with a new LIR got confused by assignment window (21) vs allocated address space (/22). That trigged another question for me. If that LIR somehow got their hand on another /20 from somewhere that is not RIPE, does the same assignment window apply to that /20 ? Or how does AW apply to bought/transferred address space? -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..
by Erik Bais 28 Jul '13

28 Jul '13

Hi, Ive heard the phrase the final /8 in several discussions but I want to ask people what their idea is about the pool that is currently still left If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is incorrect. There is still space left at IANA and once the first RIR reaches below their /9 mark of their final /8 from my understanding it is , that also that space is going to be allocated to the RIRs . Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIRs (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes back into the same pool. So you might need quite a couple of new entities to finish the pool as it is. . . Ive seen people say, why not open 20 new entities, setup a new LIR in each .. and you have 20 /22s Yes it is possible.. However Ive noticed, there is little support to close this gap.. or the gap to be able to merge those 20 LIRs .. or the option to be able to merge any LIRs that already have their final /8 /22 provided. Yes there will be people who play the system.. and with the bottom in sight, do we want to close all possible loopholes ? If we decide, no we dont want to close the loopholes, stop mentioning it in the discussion as a possible threat, because we already decided it is what it is and we are not going to close the gap. There will be some people that will just open a second LIR or perhaps even 8, there will be people who go to the IPv4 market and seek their v4 fix there The more people will request space from the current pool, with their own benefit in mind without any regard for the actual intention of the policy (provide an option for new companies into the market) it is too bad. If we are happy with the policy in place or dont see/feel the need to change, it is to me a clear consensus on how it is potentially abused. If there is no consensus and people do feel the requirement to adjust it, lets see what goes faster Getting a new policy in place or the depletion of the pool as it is currently Just my 2 cent. Erik

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)(Tore Anderson)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Jul '13

25 Jul '13

Dear Tore, Thank you for inviting me to speak. >>I feel this statement is somewhat disingenuous. The "odd RIR out" here is really ARIN, who is the only one to have a inter-RIR transfer policy that has a needs-based requirement that is also applied to the other region involved in the transfer. I agree 100% that ARIN is the "Odd RIR Out". Only ARIN pushes for needs assessments and other silliness on transfers, and I agree 100% that companies will not be silly about spending good money on IPv4 addresses that may become worthless. >>That said, there has been an inter-RIR proposal (2012-02) on the table for a while now, but the community does not seem to want or care much about it. I think that this is important to keep that in mind when deciding on how much weight to give this argument against 2013-03. Yes, 2012-02 was on the table, but has now been withdrawn, pending the outcome of 2013-03. If, and hopefully when, 2013-03 is implemented, then my intention is to put in place a new inter-RIR proposal for the RIPE community, at a time the community feels is appropriate, which allows for transfer of **legacy** IP's currently in the ARIN registry. As you probably know, legacy IP's were issued to resource holders prior to the creation of ARIN in 1997, and thus legacy holders can request RIPE to register their IP's, if the RIPE community agrees, rather than ARIN, as the registry. Then the inter-RIR transfer of legacy IP's from ARIN to RIPE can proceed regardless of needs justification, as the legacy IP's would be in the RIPE registry rather than the ARIN registry. We would have to discuss the mechanics as it might better be regarded as an inter-RIR transfer from a legacy ARIN registry element to a RIPE LIR. This is much like the ERX transfers of the past, but to a purchasing LIR. >>I'm not at all principally opposed to inter-RIR transfers, so if the author of 2012-02 would add a "need compatibility clause" to the proposed inter-RIR policy, I would have nothing against that. In other words, if it would be possible to make the need evaluation a voluntary thing that you only had to do if transferring addresses from the ARIN region - fine. Then those 5 LIRs, and those 5 only, could subject themselves to whatever demands the ARIN community might have, while the rest of us would be free of the IPv4 bureaucracy. Win-win. No, the author of 2012-02 is strongly opposed to needs justification so I would not be interested in adding needs compatibility to inter-RIR transfers. I would much rather focus on legacy IP's for inter-RIR transfers, intra-RIR transfers within RIPE, and will support any discussion within the community to bring modern economics to ARIN. Best Regards, and Thanks for the Invitation, Sandra Brown

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15
by Lu Heng 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

Hi Should the technical side of resouce training being done by ripe ncc training rather than policy? I am not against put basic principal there though. On Jul 24, 2013 5:27 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Filiz Yilmaz) > 2. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Tore Anderson) > 3. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Filiz Yilmaz) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:53:18 +0200 > From: Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment > and > Clean up) > To: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <FFF81C24-3E2F-4E44-8837-32D44B8B841D(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hello Tore, > > While I am curious for Michele's response to your mail too, here is my > bit, as I feel I agree with him in terms of principles. > > First of all, I am not totally against your proposal; it cleans up the > policy text reflecting today's circumstances to some extent and it makes a > long document way more readable. > This is also why I am writing back because I've read the draft policy > document from the beginning to the end. > > My observation is that the new document proposed is not exactly a > "registration" policy document. > It more looked to me like a description of how address space management is > done within RIPE NCC region "by the RIPE NCC". > > If I am not missing anything crucial, the main points described are: > > - The language is English, > - How big an allocation can be, > - That there is no PI anymore to be assigned directly from the NCC pools > to End users (except for the IXPs) so all resources will only goto LIRs > - And these blocks can be transferred between LIRs. > > The only bit about registration I see in the new text is section 4.0 > Registration Requirements and it does not go more than saying details > should be recorded in the database. > > So it does not contain any substantial information for registration or > address management on the LIR's side. > > This is interesting as now with this proposed policy any End user's chance > to get any IPv4 address space will be through an LIR and hope that these > LIRs are responsible and know what they are doing. I would like to see some > guidelines or at least principles mentioned in this document so the LIRs > know their responsibility in terms of fair address management as well as > the End Users so they know what to expect from these LIRs. This is what I > would be expecting from a transparent documentation of a set of policies > and principles that are still in place. > > We may not have too many specific policies to set for the few left-over > resources but I would like to believe we still have "principles" towards > the responsible management of these resources. > > In that sense Michele has a point and I argue that LIRs need to be guided > for "good address management" even without the "conservation" principle as > the top priority in the new IP world. This is missing in the proposed > policy text for it to be considered as a helpful "registration" policy in > my opinion. > > In practice, I can set up a new LIR now and ask for a new allocation and I > may be someone who does not have any previous RIPE or RIPE NCC experience. > If all I have is this document, I am not sure if it tells me enough about > my responsibilities, while I will be a critical token in the EU address > management and registration system by just becoming an LIR. > > > My other concern is in regards to the transfers. As neatly put by the NCC > Board in the Impact Analysis: > > --- > As mentioned in previous sections, the policy proposal would negatively > affect the ability of LIRs to engage in inter-RIR transfers, as the RIPE > NCC?s service region would be the only one without a needs-based > requirement for transfers. > Implementation of the policy could expose LIRs to legal challenges under > EU competition law. > --- > > > I think singling out the RIPE NCC region in the world of transfers may not > be the best idea at this stage. > > Kind regards > Filiz Yilmaz > > > > > On 24 Jul 2013, at 10:52, Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> wrote: > > > * Michele Neylon - Blacknight > > > >> As previously stated, I do NOT support the "no need" policy and > >> cannot support this document. > >> > >> IP addresses are a finite resource, as we all know, and obliging > >> people to provide some level of justification makes sense. > >> > >> The argument for "conservation" may no longer be valid, but there > >> will always be a compelling argument in favour of good resource > >> management, which I believe the policy covers. > >> > >> RIPE should not remove the requirement to provide justification. > > > > Hi Michele, > > > > I doubt you'll find anyone in the working group who is against good > > resource management. I am convinced that the proposed policy is not in > > conflict with good resource management, otherwise I would never have > > proposed it. While I can obviously only speak with certainty for myself, > > I assume that the people who support the proposal feel the same way. > > > > While it appears you believe that the proposal will bring about poor > > resource management, your message neglected to explain why or how. This > > makes it rather difficult for me to try to alleviate your concerns. > > > > As Gert also pointed out recently, the main reason I believe that IPv4 > > would continue to be consumed responsibly under the proposed policy, is > > that the LIRs in the region are painfully aware that there is no more > > IPv4 to be had from the RIPE NCC. Should an LIR anyway decide to go on a > > "spending spree" with its remaining inventory, it would only end up > > hurting itself by expediting its own depletion date. The community will > > not be impacted - without a Common, there can be no Tragedy. > > > > Best regards, > > Tore Anderson > > > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 5
by Lu 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

I support it as it would greatly reduce our work load. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. 在 2013-7-12，12:00，address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net 写道： > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Randy Bush) > 2. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Elvis Daniel Velea) > 3. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) > (Jan Ingvoldstad) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:19:50 -1000 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Clean up) > To: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> > Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <m2bo681vfd.wl%randy(a)psg.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > tore, > > you did not succeed in making the proposal unappealing. so i still > support it. > > randy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:01:55 +0200 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Clean up) > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Cc: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no>, RIPE address policy WG > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <-1730481542746753856@unknownmsgid> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi, > > I also support it. > > Regards, > Elvis > > Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > > On 12 jul. 2013, at 02:20, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > >> tore, >> >> you did not succeed in making the proposal unappealing. so i still >> support it. >> >> randy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:55:13 +0200 > From: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Clean up) > To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAEffzkzNTbrBYRRW+x2xObqcro-CK=tmKUj4r-_i_dRVu5JciA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> wrote: > >> Hi again, >> >> I was asked off-list if I could provide a unified diff showing the >> changes between version 1.0 and 2.0 of the proposed policy text. >> Attached! > > > Excellent, that made it much easier to see the changes. > > I support this version. > -- > Jan >

1 0

RIPE 66 Address Policy WG Meeting Draft Minutes
by Emilio Madaio 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft minutes of Address Policy Working Group sessions from RIPE 61 are now available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-66 Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 1

regid: rspn.ir
by Mehdi Sabour 15 Jul '13

15 Jul '13

Dear Colleague, I've faced a problem and I want to address it to you; I hope you can help me. One of my customers called "Sapco" has 193.105.2.0/24 range of IP address, It has already established BGP protocol with us and ITC (You can find its diagram in attachment). Everything with this Range IP is ok but when Sapco's clients want to browse Google's website, google.br (Belgium) opens instead of google.com. I registered its IPs in Google' support (https://support.google.com/websearch/contact/ip), unfortunately the problem hasn't solved yet. I've checked these IPs in all websites, in all of them 193.105.2.0/24 registered Iran country but I and ITC don't know what the problem is. I hope you can help me, if you face this kind of problem. Best Regards. --- Mehdi Sabour NOC Manager Technical Division Respina Networks & Beyond T: +98 21 84 23 00 00 F: +98 21 88 19 10 83 www.respina.net<http://www.respina.net/> ________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system administrator. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RESPINA. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. RESPINA accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. ________________________________

2 1

Guidance Requested: Reassigning Referenced ASNs
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Hi all Based on Randy's proposal: > inform owner of dangling reference. wait a week. inform again. > wait a month. inform again. wait a week. remove dangling reference. > wait a month to see if anything has broken enough to get the attention > of folk who do not respond to email. reassign AS number. In my point of view, it is enough to inform once. Members have to update their information, members have to be contactable by e-mail. So: 1. Inform owner about its wrong objects (only once). 2. If an owner doesn't clean up its objects, RIPE NCC should be able to clean up by itself after a month. 3. Re-assign AS numbers after two month. Best regards, Olaf Sonderegger

11 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] PA/PI unification PI Address Space
by Gert Doering 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Hi, (subject changed and in-reply-to: removed, to make it clear that this is really a different thread) On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:34:56AM +0000, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote: > It would be nice if Address Policy WG could continue with the > idea about removing status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider > Independent" (PI). Are there any plans? For IPv4, let's wait until Tore's proposal has come to a conclusion, as it's very hard to do two large-scale changes to the same text at the same time. For IPv6, it's still sitting on my lap, and I need to restart the process - thanks for the reminder. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled 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

4 6

Guidance Requested: Reassigning Referenced ASNs
by Andrea Cima 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, At the Address Policy WG session during RIPE 66, the RIPE NCC requested guidance from the RIPE community on reassigning referenced 16-bit ASNs. Together with the Address Policy WG Chairs, we have decided to seek additional input from the WG mailing list. Background: the RIPE NCC has around 1,400 returned 16-bit ASNs that are currently referenced in route objects, and "import" and "export" lines in aut-num objects. Problem: there is a need for 16-bit ASNs by operators. However, because these ASNs are referenced, they are not being reassigned. At RIPE 66, the RIPE NCC suggested the following potential solutions: A. Not reassign referenced AS numbers B. Reassign AS numbers even if referenced C. Clean up the RIPE Database from references and then reassign the AS numbers C.1. "Silent" update; or C.2. Informing the object holder of the update Please find the RIPE Meeting slides at the following url: https://ripe66.ripe.net/presentations/176-Address_Policy_WG_RIPE_66.pdf This email has been sent to both the Address Policy WG and RIPE Database WG mailing lists, due to the impact the proposals would have on the RIPE Database. However, we would ask to keep the discussion on the Address Policy WG mailing list to facilitate participation and the channeling of feedback. Thank you in advance for your input and best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

12 21