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

2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics?
by Tore Anderson 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

Quick question for the WG: What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved" transfers? a) Keep it, or b) Remove it? (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.) Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… (bottom of page) I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused transfers. Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the intention of the statistics is to record «transfers [that] were denied on the basis of needs evaluation»: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de-aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However, since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into version 2 of 2013-03. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 27 Mar '13

27 Mar '13

> You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 April 2013. Support. This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy. Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here. Sandra Brown

12 41

minimum allocation size in case of transform addresses
by Andrzej Dopierała 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

Hi! I found today out, that there is planed possibility to convert PI assignments to PA allocation. But - i'ts planed only for /22 and bigger assignments, due to minimum allocation size, and doesn't apply for example /23 or /22 assignemnts. I think it's a bit pointless. AFAIK sense of minimum allocation is suppression of unnecessary fragmentation. But - in this case - this pool is already in use, and is already visible in bgp table. Allowing or disallowing conversion doesn't have any relation with growing address space. What's more - allowing conversion of any assignment can save some of address space. Most of PI assignemts (known to me) is partialy unused. After years from assignemnts part of the plans has been withdrawn (but another parts are citical - dns servers etc - so whole assignemnt can't be returned). Allowing conversion would allow use it back, for example for customers... (sorry for my english - i hope that sense is understandable) -- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

3 2

2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The only change in the new version is: -modified the first sentence in the second paragraph of section 5.5, "Transfer of Allocation", in the RIPE Policy document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

18 32

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Randy Bush 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

this proposal seems sensible. randy

1 0

Policy Proposal 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers" Implemented
by Andrea Cima 25 Mar '13

25 Mar '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now publishing the required statistics at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… This page will be updated weekly. The data is also available in JSON format here: https://www-static.ripe.net/dynamic/table-of-transfers/transfers.json The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012-… The updated RIPE Document 582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582 If you have any questions, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

>>Back in December, I suggested that the wording be changed from ?LIRs? to >>something more generic. The rationale was that if the policy explicitly >>refers to LIRs only, this will prevent inter-region transfers of PI >>address space held by non-LIRs, even if the IPv4 policy is amended to >>allow for in-region transfers of PI addresses. >>The proposer responded: ?I am quite willing to change the wording from >>LIR's to Organizations if all agree?. I saw no objections, but version >>2.0 still refers to LIRs specifically. So I'd still like to see this >>changed. >>That said... >>I support the idea of allowing inter-region transfers in general as long >>as the marginal cost of doing so is reasonably low, so I feel a bit bad >>about this, but: I do *not* support this proposal. >>The reason for this is that inter-region transfers are being used as an >>argument against proposal 2013-03, see: >>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007757.… >>My view is that if the cost of allowing for inter-region transfers >>(specifically in a way that is compatible with ARIN's policy) is to >>uphold the need bureaucracy and operational overhead relating to >>assignments for all RIPE region LIRs, then the marginal cost is not >>reasonably low, but unacceptably high. If it's an either/or situation >>between 2012-02 and 2013-03, I'm firmly in the 2013-03 camp. I elaborate >>on why here: >>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007764.… >>This issue might be resolved by having 2012-02 add some text that >>upholds the need principle for transfers coming in from regions that >>demand it (read: ARIN), or for the recipient LIRs of such transfers >>overall. I have no suggestion on exactly how this text could look like, >>I'm afraid. I suspect the proposer would have to discuss it with ARIN >>staff in order to get confirmation that any proposed text does indeed >>satisfy their definition of ?needs-based general number resource policies?. >>Tore Tore, I agree with all you say, and in fact, the more open and inclusive the process, the better. The problem I ran into in trying to include PI space and end user space in inter-Regional transfers, is that it is not included in intra-regional transfers, and to change 2012-02 to include more, I would have to open a larger kettle of fish. So I chose to keep the scope narrow for now, thinking that the scope could be widened for all assignment types later. The warning that no needs justification in the RIPE region will give cause for ARIN to not allow inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE does not hold water. Say ARIN is giving out new IP's that will shortly be traded to RIPE and monetized, if RIPE does not have a needs justification checkpoint. That implies that ARIN has no confidence in its own needs justification system for new IP's. The counter point is that there are many address holders from, say the 1990's, who want to monetize and they didn't just get IP's and they still have their IP's exposed to that same needs justification on their buyers (ie. the wrong party, it's the sellers who are supposedly in the wrong). Needs justification is supposed to be on the part of the buyer, but as I understand it, this ARIN argument is that needs justification is needed to prevent the seller from getting away with IP theft. RIPE needs justification on the buyer will not prevent a new IP recipient in the ARIN region from selling its IP's to RIPE. The needs justification argument fails in this case. Needs justification arguments in the past were that buyers of IP's had to prevented from stockpiling and cornering the market. I guess the proponents of this theory have realized that cornering the IP market could be like cornering the silver market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt So if there is no argument in favor of needs justification to prevent sellers from cheating, and no argument to prevent buyers from cheating, Tore's idea must be a good one. Still, +1. Sandra

1 0

2012-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues The draft document for the version 3.0 of the proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfers Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The only change in the new version is: -removed a modification to the second paragraph of section 5.5, "Transfer of Allocation", in the RIPE Policy document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

5 5

2012-03 Review Period extended until 17 April 2013 (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2012-03 has been extended until 17 April. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 April 2013. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Carlos Friacas 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Support. On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0