November 2015 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior
by Valentin Panait 03 Dec '15

03 Dec '15

Hello Corin, In your case i understand but I still don`t understand why force small clients to become LIR only for a /22 and in some case they will not use entirely, when we can do something and fast i think to loose or get in front of user eyes all bad behavior LIRs and of course all rest of us to help clients, and of course help RIPE to get back all that blocks that is use now only for sale. And if you see from a customer perspective you can see cause is too expensive sometimes to become LIR for a /22 and use only /23 or even all /22. This is not a good way. On 11/19/2015 10:35 PM, Corin Langosch wrote: > Hi Valentin, > > if you read the address policy working groups emails/ archives from the past weeks you can see I'm clearly against the > ipv4 business/ market place too. We are not a LIR to make money of IP space, we do real ISP/ hosting business for > several years now. We are short of IPV4 as many other LIRs are, especially those who only got a single /22. That's why > we had to ask some of our customer to become LIRs themselves (just as you were, as it sounds). As they don't need the > *whole* space immediately themselves, why not help them lease it to those who need it - not for astronomic prices but > reasonable ones? This way the space is not wasted and no ones ripped off - in contrast to the behaviour of many old LIRs > with space of /19, /18 up to /8 just laying around for years and just waiting for better prices. > > Sorry again and I hope you got the point. > > Best, > Corin > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Netskin GmbH · Trottenstrasse 89 · 8037 Zürich · Switzerland > http://www.netskin.com · fon +41 (0)32 513 40 24 · fax +41 (0)32 513 28 21 > > Am 19.11.2015 um 21:14 schrieb Valentin Panait: >

3 6

CFP: 19th IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI 2016)
by Sandra Sendra 24 Nov '15

24 Nov '15

[Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this email] ######################################################################## CALL FOR PAPERs 19th IEEE Global Internet Symposium (GI 2016) In conjunction with IEEE INFOCOM 2016 San Francisco, CA, USA April 10-15, 2016 http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/group/eit-sdn/gi2016/ =========================================================== The Global Internet (GI) Symposium is the flagship event established and organized by the Internet Technical Committee (ITC), a joint committee of the IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc) and the Internet Society (ISOC). The 19th IEEE Global Internet Symposium will be collocated with IEEE Infocom 2016. All relevant dates, location, and travel information are available from the IEEE Infocom 2016 conference site:http://infocom2016.ieee-infocom.org/ The IEEE Global Internet Symposium aims to provide a top forum for researchers and practitioners to present and discuss advances in Internet related technologies. The focus of the symposium is on experimental systems and emerging future Internet technologies, and especially on scaling such systems to a global scale. Research on understanding Internet protocols, services, and applications at global scale is also encouraged. The Program Committee also welcomes position papers (which should be clearly marked as such). The topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following: Routing, switching, and addressing Resource management and quality of service Software defined networks and network programming Content delivery and management Energy awareness Next generation network architectures Distributed Internet applications including games, VoIP, and video conferencing Online social networking Peer To Peer networks Novel applications and new paradigms Internet measurement, modeling, and visualization Large scale network operation and performance monitoring Privacy and/or security issues on the Internet Anomaly, intrusion and attack detection Interface among networking, communications and information theory Applications of network science in communication networks Economic aspects of the Internet Important Dates: Paper submission: 22nd December 2015, 11:59 PM PST Notification of acceptance: 8th February 2016 Final manuscripts due: TBA. Symposium: TBA (around April 10-15, 2016) Submission Instructions: Submitted manuscripts must be formatted in standard IEEE camera ready format (doublecolumn,10pt font) and must be submitted via EDAS as PDF files (link https://edas.info/index.php?c=21740). The manuscripts must be no longer than 6 pages. The Program Committee reserves the right to not review papers that violate these formatting rules. Submitted papers must not have been previously published, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. All submitted papers will be reviewed and judged on originality, technical correctness, relevance, and quality of presentation. All accepted papers must be presented at the symposium by one of the authors. Program Committee Chairs: Stefan Schmid (T-Labs & TU Berlin, Germany) Sasu Tarkoma (University of Helsinki, Finland) Technical Program Committee: Fred Baker (Cisco Systems, USA) Anat Bremler-Barr (IDC Herzliya, Israel) Ruben Cuevas Rumin (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain) Anja Feldmann (TU Berlin, Germany) Giancarlo Fortino (University of Calabria, Italy) Toru Hasegawa (Osaka University, Japan) James Kempf (Ericsson, USA) Kirill Kogan (IMDEA Networks Institute, Spain) Jaime Lloret Mauri (Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain) Olaf Maennel (Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia) David Malone (Hamilton Institute, Ireland) Martin May (Technicolor, France) J�rg Ott (TU Munich, Germany) Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow, UK) George C. Polyzos (AUEB, Greece) Radia Perlman (EMC Corporation, USA) Ioannis Psaras (University College London, UK) Chen Qian (University of Kentucky, USA) Peter Reiher (UCLA, USA) Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia University, USA) Hiroshi Shigeno (Keio University, Japan) Michael Sirivianos (Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus) Rade Stanojevic (Telefonica Research, Spain) Dan Wang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong) Gang Zhou (College of William and Mary, USA) ########################################################################

3 2

LIRs with good / bad behavior
by Valentin Panait 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

Hello everyone, I`m Valentin Panait a newcommer in RIPE Community I work in Internet business from 10 years plus but now i join to you in forced conditions. Now I`m glad that i`m a part of this community and i regret that i don`t do this early. What force me to become RIPE NCC Member/ LIR? I think you know. Bad behavior of some other LIR. HOW? Simple. Make me invoice for my ip`s with almost 300% plus for next year. In this manner i have 3 choises 1. Pay , but after that i was risk to shutdown the bussines. 2. Go to another LIR but i have to renumbering everything and lost almost all clients and ... shut down the bussines 3. Become LIR and accept HIS offer to transfer from him only a half of my ip`s to my LIR for free and he remain with the other half. I need to choose to become LIR. Consequences on my side: Renumberig all clients who was on 3 /22 Lost 62 clients who pay aroud 180 euros/month eatch 2 painful months for technicians, admins, client support team, and ofcourse CLIENTS. Pay aroud 2000 euro to become LIR. Consequences on his side: 3 /22 free and can put them on the BLACK MARKET on min 3euros/IP ... you can calculate how much money... only from one client. And after finish to sold all blocks he will go to Dubai for 50 years on our money. But now on black market the price could be up to 22$/IP THIS IS A GOOD BEHAVIOR? THIS IS WHAT RIPE COMMUNITY WHANT? THIS RESPECT THE RIPE COMMUNITY RULES AND PRINCIPLES? I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. If someone can count how much IPv4 is for sale on BLACK MARKET today, we will see how much IPv4 is free and can be realocated. Now of course everyone will say: OK but what can we do about this? We have do somethig to stop this black market. I have few ideas and i`ll share with you. About LIR`s with bad behavior make a PUBLIC list of LIR`s and folowing of abuse reports that we receive from LIR`s clients, give a good or bad ratings. RIPE become regulatory authority for maximum price that a LIR can invoice a client for mainteinance ip resources / year. A client who has some IP`s from a bad LIR and he make proof of that with the invoice or proforma, can be tranfered for free to another LIR where he agree LIR conditions or has a better offer. I could be agree to get 10$/year/resource even if it is IP block or ASN and with a long time contract if client whant this. Why? Because i am not agree with what is happend now. I think that everyone hwo has a good behavior should not be afect by this rules. But we need to eliminate or stop who think that the privilege that they have because are old LIR`s and have more IPv4 give them the rights to make frome this a hudge bussines. I think the Internet bussines is to make money from services that is hosted on IP not from the IP`s. PS: A funny mail arrive that sound like this (where is dots i delete private informations): " Hi! We are a ..... LIR and have 5 /22 (=5x 1024) IPs for lease for a very reasonable price (< 1 €/ Ip/ month).The IPs are from the 185.0.0.0/8 block and have never been used before. They cannot be sold/ transferred as they are within the 24-month holding period. We are looking for a serious (no spam/ abuse), long-term cooperation (1+ year) only. If required, we could provide routing/ colocation/ server hosting too. I'm looking forward to your reply. Kind regards, ............." After my investigation He sad that have 5 /22 - WRONG on his Organisation Mainteiner and everything else that i found about him in RIPE database has only 1 IPv4 /22, 1 IPv6 /32, 2 ASN`s and a lot of mess on Inetnum`s how split that IPv4 /22. What happend with this guys? For this they become LIR to lease IP`s? I think in this case and could be more similar, we can create a WG to find this guys and report them someware. This is another place where we can find free block`s of IPv4. Let`s start to do somethig. Thank you very much that you lost your time to read this and i hope that all of you make a little time to reflect on my ideas. -- Best Regards, Valentin Panait System Administrator +40 741125871 www.ch-center.com ch-center ch-center Any disclosure, copying, distribution, posting or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. This e-mail may contain proprietary or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Thank you.

1 0

2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. The key difference from version 1.0 is clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding the 24-month holding period for scarce resources. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 December 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

6 6

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by David - ProfesionalHosting 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.

8 9

2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

46 81

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
by NOC ATOMOHOST 16 Nov '15

16 Nov '15

> Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise. Dear Jim, A lot of LIR's in the number of regions cannot allow themselves "serious approach to using IPv6" because of outdated infrustructure and lack of resources . We offer (see my previous mail) to let them grow and expand and let them opportunity to accumulate resources for update and renew their infrustructures. We expect that subsequently this can help such LIRs to deploy IPv6. Also worth mentioning that our adjustment restricts the possibilities to abuse policy changes by major LIRs who are already have the opportunity to deploy IPv6. -- Best regards, Igor Strelyaniy Network Operation Manager ATOMOHOST LLC email: noc(a)atomohost.com website: atomohost.com

2 2

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by NOC ATOMOHOST 16 Nov '15

16 Nov '15

Hello, Me and my colleagues think that community should accept this proposal with an adjustment: ** 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are met: 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry. 2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation Adjustment: 3. The LIR is not allocated more than equivalent of a /19 ** Adjustment reasoning: The last changes in IP Transfer policy (18 month transfer delay) positively influenced the fight against membership abuse. But we want to draw your attention to the fact that for now new members have virtually no space for further growth and development and are unable to compete with the old ones who were allocated much larger address space a long ago. The barrier and the prospect of a /19 prevents the old large members to abuse the changes and gives the new ones an opportunity to plan their growth for 12 years (on condition of 18 moth allocation delay), excluding transfers (in case if it is difficult to implement the transfer in a members service region). We belive that this policy changes with our adjustment will attract a new real and competitive members to community. -- Best regards, Igor Strelyaniy Network Operation Manager ATOMOHOST LLC email: noc(a)atomohost.com website: atomohost.com

1 0

2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Nov '15

15 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposers decided to withdraw the proposal due to the inability to find an acceptable solution which satisfied all parties. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

20 29

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - AS Numbers can now be assigned for any need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number - The RIPE NCC's need evaluation has been removed - A limit of 1,000 AS Numbers per organisation has been added - There is now a requirement that 16-bit AS Numbers be multihomed after nine months - The requirement that the routing policy must be new and unique has been removed - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal 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 22 January 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

16 41

RIPE 71 AP-WG Agenda v1
by Gert Doering 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

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 Bucharest in the following time slots: Wednesday, Nov 18, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, Nov 18, 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. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) 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 (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - 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 RIPE70 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation 2015-03 Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size - brief overview over new proposals (if any) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders - ...?) 2015-04 RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (Erik Bais) 2015-05 Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Radu-Adrian Feurdean, Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back H. Romania's jump to 1st place as exporter of IPs (Ciprian Nica) [30 min] presentation and discussion D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Ingrid Wijte (NCC RS) (+ discussion with the group) 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 -- 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

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
by Dominik Nowacki 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

Hello, I think that if we are changing the policy in regards to allocations from the Last /8 we should make sure this is not abused. There are many LIRs setup solely for the purpose of getting an allocation from the last /8 to rent this space out. As this space is offered for a very low fee it is often abused and hence artificially increasing the IPv4 depletion. This should not be the case. I think the policy should allow for the subsequent allocations from the last /8, but only if the space is not only not transferred out of the LIR account in the period of 18 months AND the LIR was not renting the space from the last /8 to another entities within the last 18 months period (solely, not as part of another service). What do you think ? Kind Regards, Dominik Clouvider Limited

4 5