July 2014 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Job Snijders 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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/2014-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. Kind regards, Job

5 4

About the /22 allocation limitation
by Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Hi Everyone, First of all, my name is Daniel and Im the Network Administrator of the AS199952 Im new to the address policy wg and Im sure you can answer the question. The /22 allocation restriction to new LIRs are only for new LIRs or for all LIRs? We only got a /22 as new LIR, and we cant ask for more IPs, proving we need it or not. I know, this is a recursive discussion, but I wonder if old LIRs can ask for more IPs or they are restricted as new LIRs are. For all people who are going to say "Move to IPv6" I already did it. About 75% of my network is IPv6 ready. 100% of our backbone network is IPv6 but, as all of you can see, only 18% of the World ASes are IPv6 ( http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6?s=_ALL;s=_RIR_APNIC;s=_RIR_AfriNIC;s=_RIR_ARIN;s… ) and IPv6 wont work for anybody if the rest of the world isnt IPv6 ready. To be honest, I think IPv6 will not be ready before lot of us (new lirs)run out of IPv4 address while old LIRs have thousands and thousands of unused IP address and they sell them for really expensive price. I saw one in the listing service asking for at least 2 digits per IP... 2 digits! for something they got for free in the past. Again, I know, IPv4 is exhausted but this cant be used for making lot and fast money from new LIRs that only have /22 allocation and need more. I wonder if a change proposal of the policy to allow to ask for more IPs, of course proving the use of the ones you already have, and only giving /24's would be accepted by the community or I will get flamed for making the proposal. Please, feel free to discuss about this if you are going to say something usefull. PS: Sorry about my english, if I didnt explained well about something, just tell me. I will not feel offended. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).

25 112

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Tore Anderson 13 Jul '14

13 Jul '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 «RIPE NCC Registration Services expects that this proposal will have a very positive effect on the accuracy and consistency of the RIPE Registry as the resource holders will have more incentive to properly request and document transfers of PI assignments.» And that's why we have a registry in the first place, is it not? +1 Tore

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Alex Le Heux 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Hi Marco, The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite guidance from the RIPE communityŠ What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? There¹s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ³guided", from informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the articles of association, and many steps in between ;) Regards, Alex Le Heux On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >"Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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/2014-03 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. > > >Regards, > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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/2014-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Jul '14

10 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" 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/2014-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Question about Last /8 Policy
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

Hi all, This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. If they dont need it anymore, it should be returned to RIPE. Only allowed transfers of /22 from last /8 should be: - When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now. This will help to dont especulate with the last /8 and will help slowing the depletion. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza(a)tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.

9 14

the solution to v4 runout?
by Jim Reid 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

I think this might be the answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28125336 Perhaps the RIRs could come up with a definition of "chores" that LIRs have to complete in order to get (time-limited?) use of a v4 address. :-)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
by Lu 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

Let's put it that way, it is over, so let it be it. Opening the pandora box won't changing the end results. Plus current /8 maybe able last long time-- in which is a good thing. Lu > On 2014年7月2日, at 下午12:00, 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: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 2. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 4. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Jim Reid) > 5. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a > /8 I want to start this topic again. > And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 > IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > Please, comment it. > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know >> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP >> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... >> >> Regards, >> >> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>>> >>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>>> those >>>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >>> >>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gTQMS7nsq0JP3m=YawfFhOMYkaWAV1X17bh4W9vxkK9ZQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> Should be use the Available IP Pool >> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door > for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this > was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what > would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next > upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? > > Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to > undo this change. > > > Sorry, > Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca >> <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >>> Should be use the Available IP Pool >>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? >> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door >> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this >> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what >> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next >> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? >> >> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to >> undo this change. > I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with > only a /22). > I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have > Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 > enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, > etc.) dont support it. > Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for > possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since > transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it. > > I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if > one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have > 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help > on IPv6 deployment. > > To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something > similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 > > Regards, > >> >> Sorry, >> Richard > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <B485997B-74D9-402A-AFC8-A43A45A99717(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. > > I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. > > You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. > > To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Jim, > > You understandme wrong or I did not said it well. > Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer > to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, > IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack > or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4. > My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job > on IPv6 deployment. > > About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, > but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 > is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen > then. > > But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing > their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them > (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since > there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will > have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. > > A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in > expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the > time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. > > Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not > have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way > so you all can understand what Im trying to say. > > Regards, > > El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?: >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. >> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. >> >> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. >> >> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 > ************************************************

1 0