May 2015 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Jun '15

14 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

31 31

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

47 146

2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Thomas01.Schmidt＠conti.de 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Fri May 22 John Collins wrote: ----------------------------------------- Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. ----------------------------------------- I represent on of these "Enterprise LIRs" and like to support this proposal. The organisational structure could request specific consideration in the IP address management design (e.g. caused by M&A, subsidaries or divisional independencies under a holding). The removed text in the new policy proposal ------------------begin--------------- If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. -----------------end------------------ gives the freedom to allocated an address design independ by the number of existing users. We currently face the existing limitation by become LIR at ARIN and APNIC too. The additional address allocations helps us to cover the global parts of the company with sufficient address space but with additional expenses and costs. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards / Meilleures salutations Thomas Schmidt IT Corporate Infrastructure Strategy, Network IT CO IN ST N Continental AG Vahrenwalder Str. 9, D-30165 Hannover, GERMANY Phone: 0049 511 938-1269 Telefax: 0049 511 938-81269 Email: Thomas01.Schmidt(a)conti.de http://www.conti.com http://www.continental-corporation.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Postfach/Postbox 1 69, D-30001 Hannover Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Reitzle Vorstand/Executive Board: Dr. Elmar Degenhart (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Jose A. Avila, Dr. Ralf Cramer, Frank Jourdan, Helmut Matschi, Dr. Ariane Reinhart, Wolfgang Schaefer, Nikolai Setzer, Hans-Juergen Duensing Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Hannover Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 3527, USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 115645799 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Proprietary and confidential. Distribution only by express authority of Continental AG or its subsidiaries.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: ------------------------------------------------- > > A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. > > The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. hierarchical and geographic structuring ---------------------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. the segmentation of infrastructure for security ------------------------------------------------------------ Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. planned longevity of allocation ---------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. And thank you very much for reading this far! Best Regards, John

6 6

WG: Re: 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by alexander.brinkmann＠kaufland.com 26 May '15

26 May '15

Hi all, I support this proposal, too, Thanks John Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Alexander Brinkmann Tel.: +49 7132 949665 Fax: +49 7132 9479665 EMail: alexander.brinkmann(a)kaufland.com KI 967850 IT International / IT Governance / Netzwerk Design und IT-Sicherheit Office: Haller Straße 60 74189 Weinsberg http://www.kaufland.de http://www.spannende-it.de Kaufland Informationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG Postfach 12 53 - 74149 Neckarsulm Kommanditgesellschaft Sitz: Neckarsulm Registergericht: Stuttgart HRA 104163 ----- Weitergeleitet von Alexander Brinkmann/IS/KI/KAUFLAND am 26.05.2015 11:36 ----- Von: Carlos Gómez Muñoz <carlosf.gomez(a)seap.minhap.es> An: John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Kopie: mschmidt(a)ripe.net Datum: 26.05.2015 11:03 Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Gesendet von: "address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> I support the proposal with the addition suggested by John. Best regards, Carlos Gómez es.seap Spanish government LIR El 22/05/2015 a las 11:45, John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch escribió: > Dear Colleagues, > > On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: > ------------------------------------------------- > >> A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. >> >> The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 >> > > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. > > I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) > > -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ > "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. > > Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." > -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- > > > Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): > > number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. > > hierarchical and geographic structuring > ---------------------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. > > the segmentation of infrastructure for security > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. > > planned longevity of allocation > ---------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. > > > Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. > > And thank you very much for reading this far! > > Best Regards, > John > > >

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service Region
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 May '15

21 May '15

Dear colleagues, Now that the RIPE NCC has reached its last /8, some Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are choosing to obtain additional address space from other organisations via the emerging transfer market. In this new article on RIPE Labs we examine statistics from the last two and a half years of transfers and visualise per country aggregates on a map: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv4-transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-servic… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

10 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by David Huberman 20 May '15

20 May '15

Some data from the ARIN region, courtesy of Richard Jimmerson of ARIN: For the last several years ARIN has been registering AS numbers by issuing the lowest AS number we have in inventory to approved organizations. We ask those organizations if they would be willing to accept an AS number higher in the number range, and outside of the range that previously made up the 2-byte only AS number space. In 2014 we found that nearly 27% of the organizations approved for an AS number elected to receive a 4-byte AS number rather than take the lowest AS number in our inventory. Several organizations unwilling to receive a 4-byte AS number have indicated to ARIN that their transit providers strongly state a preference that their customers use AS numbers from the traditional 2-byte AS number range. More recently, because of a lack of 2-byte AS numbers in the ARIN inventory, the AS number assignments we make are 4-byte AS numbers and outside of the range that previously made up the 2-byte only AS number space. For those organizations who come back to ARIN specifically stating a preference for a 2-byte AS number, we may be able to continue satisfying their requests using AS numbers that have recently been added to the ARIN AS number inventory through returns or revocations. Very recently ARIN received a new assignment of AS numbers from the IANA. Roughly 90 of those were from the 2-byte range. In 2014 there were 12 organizations that elected to receive a 4-byte AS number and later came back to ARIN to exchange it for a 2-byte AS number. Each of these organizations stated issues with their transit providers either unwilling or unable to accept the use of a 4-byte AS number by a customer. 2014 total AS numbers issued: 1,579 2014 4-byte AS numbers issued: 416 2014 2-byte AS numbers issued: 1,163 David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation

4 4

2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 20 May '15

20 May '15

Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been extended until 19 May 2015. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

10 15

<off-topic> RE: 2014-03 Review Period extended until 19 May 2015 (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Erik Bais 17 May '15

17 May '15

Hi Randy, > i really missed being there > we can blame serge, who shifted the meeting left one week from it's > traditional time, and thus conflicted with our tenth wedding anniversary :) You can't blame Serge for your poor planning in a wedding date ... You knew 10 years ago that there is a RIPE meeting in may ;) Congratz btw ;-) Erik

2 1

2015-02 Impact Analysis will be produced (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 May '15

14 May '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has ended. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Marco Schmidt 14 May '15

14 May '15

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 27 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

15 30

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Sander Steffann 13 May '15

13 May '15

Hi, > A good point and one that hadn't occurred to me. If this was to > be interpreted as "must make assignments", would this proposal > even be necessary? Everyone receiving resources and immediately > transferring them would be in violation of the policy and, > strictly speaking, all transfers of this kind that have already > happened would be invalid? My argument was mainly to point out that this behaviour is against the spirit of the policy, in response to: > So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a /22 with the intent to "sell" it is reasonable. But yes, if no assignments happened at all I agree that the allocation would not be according to policy. However, people trying to cheat the system could just make fake assignments for a short period of time and then they would strictly speaking comply with the policy. They would still be dishonest though, which is why I feel that we shouldn't take this practice into account when writing new policy. If you want to look up the history of this, here is the message from Tore when he introduced that line in the policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/00815… Cheers, Sander

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8
by Callum Stuart 12 May '15

12 May '15

Someone has made the comments on this article from ripe labs. Any comments from the community? How can this kind of thing happen in the ripe? Prior to the ripe depletion, it is even hard for my org to apply for a /19. Now my org can only apply for a /22! So as to keep low profile to have Lu Heng’s IPs sold. He had created another shell named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:武汉云外恒信息技术有限公司). And then have his IPs sold under this new shell without attracting too much attentions from the RIPE community. He has earned more than 4millions USD for selling his IPs. By the way, cos of this business structure, he can avoid heaps of taxes which should be paid to Netherland Gov and Overseas Gov. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen ( this is where Lu heng graduated) 31.201.0.0/16 2011-04-28 PA SOLD AS35916 (US） 37.222.0.0/15 PA SOLD AS16276 （ovh, France） ;AS35916 46.136.0.0/16 PA SOLD AS8312（kpn Netherland）;AS35916 5.132.0.0/16 2012-07-12 PA ( Split for sales） /17 left for future sale AS35916 5.224.0.0/15 2012-09-06 SOLD AS35916 178.236.224.0/20 PA Still available for Sale AS16276 Lu Heng still has /17 +/20 left available for Sale in RIPE and one aggregated Afrinic 154.80.0.0/12 ( Currently in Rental business). The Business structure of OutsideHeaven: The main Body of OutsideHeaven was registered in Tax heaven place ( Netherland). Then come the lower Body OutsideHeaven Hangzhou ( registered in Zhejiang Province of China) and the other lower Body Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology ( registered in Hubei Province of China). Under this kind of structure, the company of Lu Heng has avoided to pay the taxes he should pay to the Chinese Government. His main Body registration info: His shell company’s registration info written in holland language. However, you can use google translate to understand. Please note this company does not pay any tax in Holland and in China. Online inzage uittreksel KvK-nummer 01133738 Deze inschrijving valt onder beheer van Kamer van Koophandel Noord-Nederland Onderneming Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Rechtsvorm Eenmanszaak Startdatum onderneming 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Werkzame personen 0 Vestiging Vestigingsnummer 000005125421 Handelsnamen OutsideHeaven AnytimeChinese Voor Altijd Bezoekadres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Telefoonnummer 0641734323 Internetadressen www.anytimechinese.com (http://www.anytimechinese.com) www.anytimechinese.net (http://www.anytimechinese.net) E-mailadres info(a)anytimechinese.com (mailto:info@anytimechinese.com) Datum vestiging 26-06-2008 Activiteiten SBI-code: 620102 - Ontwikkelen en produceren van maatwerksoftware SBI-code: 6203 - Beheer van computerfaciliteiten Webdesign. Het exploiteren van een informatieve website. Het geven van informatie over China aan ondernemers. De export van online gamecards. Het beheren van computernetwerken. ICT dienstverlening. Beheren van ICT infrastructuur. Werkzame personen 0 Eigenaar Naam Lu, Heng Geboortedatum en -plaats 01-09-1988, Onbekend, China Adres Esdoornlaan 656, 9741MH Groningen Datum in functie 26-06-2008 One of His Chinese Dummy Corporation named 杭州云外恒网络技术有限公司 in Chinese／English name: outside heaven If you look at its websites, there is no update since 2013 http://www.outsideheaven.com/zh-cn/news You can search the company registration info via link http://122.224.75.235:7082/wsdjpt/ The other of his Chinese Dummy Corporation named Wuhan Yunwaiheng Information Technology Co., Ltd registered in Wuhan, Hubei Province of China ( its Chinese name is:武汉云外恒信息技术有限公司) You can search the company registration info via link http://gssoso.whhd.gov.cn/dhb/index.html Ironically, a Clever Chinese guy without “Euro blood” can be "smart Enough" to have as many RIPE IPs as he can. On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 2:55 AM, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@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 (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@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: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Sebastian Wiesinger) > 2. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (remco van mook) > 3. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Hannigan, Martin) > 4. Re: New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service > Region (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 13:54:14 +0200 > From: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian(a)karotte.org (mailto:sebastian@karotte.org)> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in > the RIPE NCC Service Region > Message-ID: <20150508115414.GA23553(a)danton.fire-world.de (mailto:20150508115414.GA23553@danton.fire-world.de)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > * Dan L?dtke <mail(a)danrl.de (mailto:mail@danrl.de)> [2015-05-08 11:33]: > > See, we can not win this games. Let?s stop wasting energy and > > resources on dealing with legacy IP and how to make it work for a > > bit longer. New entrants are entering are market that is not fair, > > and we can not make a real difference. The only way forward is to > > push IPv6 and restore a healthy climate regarding the availability > > of IP addresses. > > > > > Dan, > > if you don't want to invest your time trying to make this market more > fair by all means go ahead and do something else. There are still > people here who would like to try so that new players can enter a > market that will be dominated by IPv4 for some time to come. > > Most people here are pushing IPv6 but as much as you want to bury IPv4 > it will still be around for some time. > > 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 >

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] mesh / community networks? 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by William Waites 11 May '15

11 May '15

Hi Vesna! Nice to hear from you. You say that this is about governmental networks but that is not actually mentioned in the proposal itself. If you are correct then the proposal should be changed to explicitly mention that. If you are not correct then this just leaves more discretion to RIPE, which is fine -- I've always found the NCC to be rational and reasonable. For an organisation like HUBS which has small but autonomous member networks and a /29, we basically do: 2a04:5d00::/32 -- pool for /64 networks with /44 allocated to each member. 2a04:5d01::/32 -- pool for /48 networks with /40 allocated to each member (currently unused!). 2a04:5d02::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d03::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d04::/32 -- experimental 2a04:5d05::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d06::/32 -- reserved. 2a04:5d07::/32 -- reserved. In a country with 5 million population -- even several times that -- this ought to be plenty. If we need more I would expect to have to justify it! This does not really bear on DFZ routing table size unless there is a global policy on the horizon that will forbid announcing /44 or /40 networks i.e. when one of our members becomes multi-homed. The current policy says, "If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure." Deleting this is ok. Also ok would be substituting "extent and structure" for "extent". Without knowing any better I would have interpreted this as giving equal weight to number of users and topology. If you have a lot of users you get a big allocation. If your topology justifies you get a big allocation. So it may actually be that we don't even need a new policy, just more clarity on the interpretation. Cheers, -w On Mon, 11 May 2015 09:18:15 +0200, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA(a)ripe.net> said: > Hi, there is this policy proposal (below) that is going to > change criteria for allocations to _governmental_ / national > networks -- but!! Maybe it can be used for the community > networks too?? > Would you be interested in reading this proposal, and seeing if > it would be sufficient, or are there any modifications possible > to suit your needs? > Now is the time :) > If you have any questions about "policy development process", > please let me know! > In short: you (anyone) can write to the mailing list below, and > say what you think of this proposal - agree, disagree, or how it > could be modified, and why. Then there will be more discussion, > proposal might get changed and finally accepted -- or > refused. If it's accepted, it becomes a new "policy", that is: > rules for allocating IPv6 to LIrs -- or their customers! > Concretely, if "additional aspects" can be expressed in terms > that "participants in mesh network are not countable customers" > and there is no "infrastructure" in the mesh... then maybe this > will work out better for the future community networks. > Thanks, Vesna > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [staff] > [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment > Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Date: Tue, 28 Apr > 2015 14:00:40 +0200 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> > Reply-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To: > policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Dear colleagues, > A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. > The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial > IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider > additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and > extent of the organisation's infrastructure. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 27 May 2015. > Regards > Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Infinity Telecom SRL 11 May '15

11 May '15

Hello, If this proposal will be accepted: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 The price per IP found at "IPv4 Transfer Listing Service" will be double or even worst. Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them. To pay double or even more for some spammed IP.. its not a good choice.. only because smart guys with no real internet business hold very large blocks This proposal should have more time, its not like any other proposal, this can affect activity for a lot of small companies. Thank you. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis(a)infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact(a)infinitytelecom.ro

28 123

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 09 May '15

09 May '15

Hi all, speaking for the LIR requesting IPv6 space for the government authorities in Switzerland I support the proposed policy change. Whereas the existing policy wording promotes a non-wasteful use of addresses, it prevents the implementation of addressing plans that are aligned with federated organisational structures where the principle of subsidiarity is followed and members are highly autonomous. Such addressing plans may be required in large organisations or federations of autonomous states, which in addition to membership of the containing whole, may require autonomous routing and addressing plans. kind regards, John Collins ch.swissgov FOITT An IT Service Provider of the Swiss Federal Administration

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Ivan Bulavkin 06 May '15

06 May '15

> ... and reading this I think the policy must be strictly changed. I do > not exactly know the wording of RIPE membership rules, but if you set up > a "Verein" in Germany (and this is more or less the type which matches > best the legal form RIPE NCC has) you are recommended to put something > like "each and every person who is willingly doing any harm to the club, > it's reputation or other members is to be kicked out without any right > for compensations. All rights this person has be being member are > immediately withdrawn. The exclusion from the club does not reduce the > any regress against the excluded member". > Except this is not policy (done by the RIPE community), but a RIPE NCC > affair. Changes like this are to be decided in general meeting with > approval from a majority of members (including the incriminated LIRs and > people that may not understand what this is all about). > Discussing such issues shoud be done ont the APWG mailing list, but on > the members-discuss or a membership-related mailing list. > Please also take into account that people having a right to vote at the > NCC GM are not always the same as the ones active here. > But the idea is not bad. > I see, that it is not possible to prevent every bypassing, but I think > someone who is even spaming and advertising sale of resources shall be > kicked out RIPE NCC immediately and all resources this person or > enterprise ever requested should be withdrawn! In 2010, 2011, 2012 I was just a LIR client (I didn't have my own registered LIR) : I asked the LIR for IPv4 assignment and got it. The cost for /21 IPv4 assignment was 300 USD/year. I got some /21 assignments from one LIR, some /21 from another LIRs and all were - ok: the price was good for me, I used the PA space from LIR allocation (as RIPE NCC recommended and didn't ask for PI IPv4). On June 2012, I received a letter from my LIR that says: the price for PA assignment /21 from January 2013 will 24000 USD/year. The another LIRs increased price for PA IPv4, but no so dramatically. I had to find a replacement for address space with a crazy price that affected the clients. So we can see the following: 1) Client asked the LIR for IPv4, and the LIR recommends the PA IPv4 assignment from their allocation; 2) The LIR asked the RIPE NCC for new allocation for clients and got more and more allocations; 3) The RIPE NCC didn't control the price for IPv4 for LIR clients; 3.1) I'm sure, the RIPE NCC shall not approved the PI IPv4 assignment for me with reason: I'm not sure that a RIPE NCC member (LIR) will not increase drastically the prices. 4) One day the LIR drastically increase the price for PA IPv4 for end users from 300 USD/year to 24000 USD/year and the multiple PA allocations are ready for sell... 5) The RIPE NCC policies didn't allow me to register the my own LIR and picked up the PA allocation from crazy LIR: pay or close your business, or get only /22. 6) The RIPE NCC is approved the "selling" the IPv4 from last /8 on 23/01/2013 - it is good for any existing and new LIR to get /22 that LIR really don't need and sell it for 10$/IP. 7.1) The RIPE NCC is approving selling the IPv4 from 185/8 for 2 years and there is no reaction from RIPE NCC community, only now. 7.2) So why do I need to pay 15$/IP or more to the LIR from my real history or to any existing LIR from 185/8? P.S. Maybe someone who speaks the most about saving 185/8 and has reserves of IPv4 is ready to transfer them to me for free, because they had previously received them from RIPE for free? I think I know in advance the answer to this rhetorical question. Best regards, Ivan Bulavkin

1 0

Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Fredy Kuenzler 06 May '15

06 May '15

All, as we are doing a daily diff of ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt we observed that something happens right now which was probably not forseen and not inteded by the policy. I thought to make the working group aware. Regards, Fredy / Init7 -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [allocdelta] New or removed allocations Datum: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:00:36 +0200 Von: allocdelta(a)init7.net * ru.ibulavkin25 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150224 185.89.104.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150217 2a03:7f60::/32 * ru.ibulavkin26 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150217 185.88.96.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150216 2a03:7da0::/32 * ru.ibulavkin29 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150409 185.95.100.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin33 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150422 185.97.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin35 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150414 185.95.228.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.srv2013 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20140930 185.71.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141119 185.77.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141121 185.78.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141031 185.75.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.180.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130626 185.29.124.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.172.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130527 2a00:90a0::/32 [ADD] 20141216 185.81.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141001 185.71.212.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141113 185.76.240.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140903 185.68.244.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140604 185.59.232.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140521 185.58.112.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140829 185.68.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141216 185.24.108.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.48.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA

27 36

Agenda for Amsterdam, draft v2
by Gert Doering 02 May '15

02 May '15

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a new draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 13, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 13, 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 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection [15 min?] - longest-serving chair (Gert Doering) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO [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 RIPE69 2014-04 Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 (consensus, policy) 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources (consensus, policy) 2014-07 Language Clarification 2014-08 Language Clarification 2014-10 Language Clarification 2014-11 Language Clarification (consensus, policy) 2014-09 Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space for IXPs" **no consensus, withdrawn** 2014-12 Allow IPv6 Transfers (consensus, policy) 2014-13 Allow AS Number Transfers (consensus, policy) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [30-40 min] (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals [10-30 min] 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders - no discussion, just status update from the WG chair) 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations (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. Will It Be Routed? - On IPv6 Address Space Allocation & Assignment [30 m] Approaches in Very Large Organizations Presentation by Enno Rey, and Discussion F. Discussion of open policy proposals (continued) [45 min?] 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation (James Kennedy) 2015-03 Assignment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size (Mathew Newton, Alexander Brinkmann) G. New Ideas under Discussion [15 min] - Elvis Daniel Velea - change size of last /22 allocations - Erik Bais - unified transfer policy 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