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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR TransferPolicy Proposal)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

> it would appear that the phrase ?Within the RIPE NCC service region,? > is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section > 5.5. I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says ?this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region?. It appears to me that the new paragraph being added (?other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation?), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ I agree with Tore. While in the immediate term, 2012-03 will apply to intra-RIR transfers within the RIPE region, the intent is to extend the needs justification period from 3 months to 24 months. Now that the RIPE NCC is down to the last /8, when an LIR is in need of IPv4 addresses, it is placed in the position of procuring them from another LIR within region. Doing a procurement every 3 months would be onerous, and extension is needed. However, to Tore's point, there is no point in restricting the policy to needs justification. It will be an independent decision to approve the inter-RIR policy 2012-02, but should this happen, the needs justification period should be common for any procurement. I think the intent of the rewording was to emphasize that it is a RIPE NCC Policy, but it could be misconstrued to imply that the policy is for transfers within the RIPE NCC, and not for any transfer to/from the RIPE NCC. My suggestion, since it is part of the RIPE NCC Policy Manual, would be to remove the words, as recommended by Tore. If 2012-02 is approved, it will make wording changes to 5.5 to allow for inter-RIR transfers. 5.5 Transfers of Allocations Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an End User. Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC, following the policies set for receiving further allocations within RIPE region (see the Section 5.3 Additional Allocations of this document). Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

>From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Tore Anderson 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

* Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR > Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published > > You can find the full proposa and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 On this page, it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5. > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03/draft However, that phrase is not found in the «new text» box on this page. That must be an omission? As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document). Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal). The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like. In any case, I support this policy proposal. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

5 7

2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposa 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 24 December 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 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 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 24 December 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Dear AP-WG ;) Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 and /29 without additional justification needed. One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the start of that /29" So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you got it with no issues. But not all of you. We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space). When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy. The policy says: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further documentation." So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never end up with more than a /29 *total* 3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29 Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be extended to a /30. When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow correct this. New suggested text would be: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further documentation." With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that route and draft the policy change proposal? Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change? Thank you very much, Jan Zorz

11 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 12 Nov '12

12 Nov '12

As a broker in the IPv4 space, I support 2012-05 100%. We need transparency in transaction pricing. Otherwise there will continue to be black markets and unscrupulous operators. I view my job as finding buyers to match sellers and finding sellers to match buyer needs. Just as in stock markets, commodity markets, and housing markets, IPv4 markets require open pricing. Only then will most people give this market legitimacy and most of the devious behaviour go away. Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness. For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value. Global barriers to trade (think inter-RIR transfers) have to come down so that prices in one part of the world are not different from other parts. Although this is a little off-topic, the use of needs justification is a huge barrier to honest and open trade (as per Milton's workshop in Baku earlier this week). Companies are doing some very creative things to avoid the RIR justification process and as a result the registries are getting less accurate, and the RIR's spout community credos rather than really look at the problem. The good news is these problems should be gone in 50 years when IPv4 is finally replaced by IPv6! Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 09 Nov '12

09 Nov '12

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

*Sander Steffann*wrote<mailto:address-policy-wg%40ripe.net?Subject=Re:%20%5Baddress-policy-wg%5D%20Status%20of%20/24%20PI%20IPv4%20from%20last%20/8&In-Reply-To=%3CA3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88%40steffann.nl%3E>/@ Wed Oct 3 15:17:43 CEST 2012/: Hello Marcin, >/ I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? / You can find the status here:http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 The policy proposal is in the review phase and under discussion until the 8th of October. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair I'm a little lost too. Are we waiting until RIPE66 or was there supposed to be an update on that? regards, Yannis

20 62

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

Hi Alex. I'm under the impression that you're the right guy to ask about this, but please do forward this message if appropriate. Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis: «It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.» I'm hereby requesting the details on the transfer mentioned. In particular, I'd like to know the date of the transfer, which specific prefix(es) it involved, and the origin and destination LIRs. I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP. Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

8 15