September 2013 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sebastian Wiesinger 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> [2013-09-19 16:48]: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal > described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) > are edited and published. I support this proposal. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Gert Doering 09 Oct '13

09 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 This is "the big IPv6 revolution thing" I promised you somewhat over two years ago :-) - unification of PA and PI into "just numbers, no colours". As I never found time to actually write the specific policy document, it stalled, until these three brave volunteers took over and spent *quite* some amount of discussion and word-smithing to come up with what should be a much easier and cleaner IPv6 policy, without changing the underlying spirit ("who needs addresses gets some"), but removing some of the artificial strings ("addresses of this colour must not be used to do X, for that, you need more expensive ones"). It's a big change, and it's radical, but it's what you asked for when being presented with the idea :-) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

19 77

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

+1 Tore

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Richard Hartmann 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Dear all, I support the general direction of this proposal. If it included v4, I would still be in favor. That being said, I am not sure about the prefix sizes listed in this proposal. According to section 5.1.2 of the new text, everyone will receive at least a /32 unless the addresses will be used for a special purpose as per section 6. In this case, allocations can be made in allocations of /48: * Operating a TLD: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an ENUM: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an IXP: 1 * /48 * Operating a DNS root server: 1 * /32 There are three concerns with this: 1) Assuming everyone will get at least a /32, why limit core internet infrastructure, i.e. TLDs, ENUMs, and IXPs to a mere /48? The combined amount of those allocations will be dwarfed by the combined amount of LIRs and End Users. 2) While there are a _lot_ of addresses with IPv6, handing a multi-homed End User who will be able to operate on a single /48 for the foreseeable future a whole /32 appears to be wasteful. Maybe that's v4 speaking through me, but still... 3) Becoming a LIR costs several thousand Euros up front and then per year. Not being a LIR and simply getting the same /32 will, under current pricing schemes, cost €50. Becoming a LIR would become an extremely stupid business move over night. This means the existing LIRs will be stuck with paying whatever price increases happen over the years. That, in turn, means LIRs will start trying to redistribute the cost. And _that_ will become ugly very quickly. I am not saying my suggested answers are perfect, but my gut feeling tells me that while the distinction between "this is PA, hand it to your customers" and "this is PI, don't you dare using it for anyone but yourself" does not make sense, there should still be a distinction between "we need a few v6 addresses" and "we need a lot v6 addresses". Two possible approaches: * Non-LIR allocations could be limited to a single aggregated equivalent of, e.g. a /40 or /41. If someone needed more, let them become a LIR. * Do away with the flat fee of €50 per Independent Number Resource and charge based on size. This would also somewhat prevent people from grabbing as much IP space as possible. As an aside, reading [1] is needlessly hard. There are several sections where text on the left-hand side does not appear on the right-hand side. New text on the right-hand side is marked in blue; disappearing text on the left-hand side is not marked in any way. This is yet another reminder of why migrating to plain text with an automated storage and diffing back-end ASAP will be a Good Thing. Richard [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/other-documents/draft-ipv6-address-allocatio…

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sylvain Vallerot 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Hi all, Unfortunately we do not support this new proposal, because conservation still is a goal to us, as IPv4 public ressource keeps being vital for many structures. Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private sector and market. Moreover, the rationale "supporting arguments" list doesn't convince us at all, let me be more explicit : 1. reduced bureaucracy : I do not consider proper use of ressources and justification as just "bureaucracy" but as a necessity to take good care 2. for long-term business planning: from 2 year to infinity ? is this serious, we are talking about IPv4 here ? 3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand are we stupid or something ? 4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation" this cannot be a supporting argument, one does not just suppress a criteria to ease the problem 5. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming properly made documentation should not take time to show for LIRs, and Ripe does not expect time spared for itself on the other side 6. Reduction of RIPE NCC workload or not : see impact analysis part C, that says no workload nor financial benefit is to be expected in the Ripe NCC. 7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system". supress rules so no ones will cheat them ? this is nonsense. 8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise IPv4 and IPv6 are not similar, why should policies be ? Unfortunately counter-arguments have been provided for each "con" arguments. I deeply regret it was not done for "pro" arguments because many (above) do not resist a tiny bit of attention. Eventually, it was not mentionned (despite this was discussed previously) that the disappearance of the conservation goal could stop the unused space collection, thus artificially accelerating the depletion and its disastrous effects for some little structures. Best regards, Sylvain Vallerot

17 45

2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 October 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by NEUCKENS Marc (NEO/IPR) 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

I agree with this policy. Current ipv6 policy pushes entreprises to becoming LIR just to obtain a workable assignment. ________________________________ ***** Disclaimer ***** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Richard Hartmann 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 Somewhat off topic, but the links on that page point to i.e. [1] which redirects towards the generic search interface instead of displaying the expected documents. If RIPE NCC itself makes that honest mistake... This is part of what's being addressed on ncc-services-wg as of right now [2], [3]. I can't say if I am for or against the actual proposal, yet. Richard [1] https://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-589/ [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-September/0025… [3] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-September/0025…

2 1

2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233, "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 October 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

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

25 Sep '13

+1 ..... I support this proposal. Best Regards, Sandra Brown

5 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Randy Bush 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. and once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more +1

8 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Ian Johannesen 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Hi all, > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. +1 for this proposal Best regards, Ian Johannesen

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Hi all. +1. I support this proposal. Best regards, Olaf

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Richard Hartmann 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Dear all, I still support this proposal and have the slight hope that this will be the last time I will have to state this. Richard PS: For a unified diff between v2 and v3, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155…

16 37

2012-08
by James Blessing 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Support (I seem to deleted the original thread) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Andy Davidson 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Hi, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send > any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 > October 2013. Support. Andy

1 0

Fwd: Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by David Farmer 21 Sep '13

21 Sep '13

Sorry this should have went to the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:21:31 -0500 From: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota To: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> CC: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> On 9/20/13 07:27 , Tore Anderson wrote: > Hi Sylvain, ... >> Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole >> market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in >> its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private >> sector and market. > > The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial > transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is > really 2007-08 you should be going after. You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection. He didn't say that he doesn't support the transfer market. He said he doesn't support your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal of justification of need for transfers. And, yes the transfer market is a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing justification of need for transfers. > On your second point, I would like to stress that 2013-03 version 3 does > ensure that the NCC's distribution of IPv4 address space stays the same > as right now: If you want your last /22, you'll have to use it for > making assignments; and if you're an IXP and want something larger than > a /24, you'll have to demonstrate the operational need for it. > > Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is > and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the > NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who > might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market. > This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the > other. > > If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from > receiving resources from the NCC, you are free to submit a proposal that > does just that. If you want to undo 2007-08 and thus retire the IPv4 > market, you are free to submit a proposal that does just that too. But > please leave those topics out of the 2013-03 thread. Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection. The RIPE NCC doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the justification of those resources. Or, the cost of dealing with the "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why you want to eliminate it. Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address them properly. Thank you. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Sep '13

20 Sep '13

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal > described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) > are edited and published. > supported -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 25, Issue 4
by Lu Heng 20 Sep '13

20 Sep '13

+1 On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00 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 Cleanup) > (Daniel Stolpe) > 2. Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) > (Bengt G?rd?n) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:43:20 +0200 (CEST) > From: Daniel Stolpe <stolpe(a)resilans.se> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Cleanup) > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1309201043000.1105(a)server.resilans.se> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > >> to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. > > > > and once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more > > > > +1 > > +1 > > Cheers, > > Daniel Stolpe > > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 > stolpe(a)resilans.se > Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 > http://www.resilans.se/ > Box 13 054 > 556741-1193 > 103 02 Stockholm > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:03:09 +0200 > From: Bengt G?rd?n <bengan(a)resilans.se> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Cleanup) > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <523C0F4D.7060305(a)resilans.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > 2013-09-19 21:57, Sascha Luck skrev: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:52:52AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> and once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more > > > > Damn, I wanted to write that ;p > > > > +1 also > > > > I'm favour of this proposal. > +1 > > /bengan > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 25, Issue 4 > ************************************************ > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Mikael Abrahamsson 20 Sep '13

20 Sep '13

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. I fully support this proposal (as stated before in the discussion some months back). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

1 0

2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Marco Schmidt 19 Sep '13

19 Sep '13

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) are edited and published. The amendments are: - Retain "Fairness" goal - Retain "Need" for final /22 allocations - Clarify criteria for IXP assignment expansions The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 and the draft document 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 18 October 2013. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

APWG agenda for RIPE 67 (Draft 1)
by Gert Doering 19 Sep '13

19 Sep '13

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Athens in the following time slots: Wednesday, Oct 16, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, Oct 16, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Ingrid Wijte, NCC RS [15-20 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 RIPE66 * 2013-02 Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses -> consensus, and implemented - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [15-20 min] F. Discussion of open policy proposals [30-45 min] 2012-02 Policy for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 Address Space (update from the chair: where are we, what are the next steps) 2013-03 No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup 2013-05 No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Discussion of open policy proposals [30-45 min] 2013-06 PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space X. WG Chair Selection Procedure Define a process how the APWG (s)selects it's working group chair(s). (Tentative, if there is no time, this goes to the mailing list) 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." Z. AOB

1 0

New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Ingrid Wijte 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Block from the IANA in September 2013. 61952-62463 199680-200191 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Info from the Address Council, regarding AS# allocation by IANA
by Wilfried Woeber 08 Sep '13

08 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, for your information! A while ago the IANA submitted a question regarding the appropriate interpretation of the Global Policy on AS Number Allocation[1]; in particular, whether an allocation needs to be a contiguous block or may be a set of separate ranges, including a portion of the lower value range (legacy 16-bit range). After some discussion, the Address Council agreed (unanimously, in its meeting on June 5th, 2013[2]) on the following resolution: <quote> “The AC answers IANA’s question regarding the allocation of 1024 AS Numbers as follows: There is no requirement in the policy to form the block of 1024 AS Numbers from a contiguous set of numbers, thus allocating from 2 or more different value-ranges is acceptable.” </quote> Best regards, Wilfried [1] https://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/global-policy-a… http://aso.icann.org/global-policies/ [2] for clerical reasons, the (draft) minutes for the June 5th meeting have only become available in late August, thus the delay in reporting back to the Working Group and community.

1 0