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

Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
by David Monosov 31 Jul '09

31 Jul '09

Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, >From the document: [...] 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User. [...] IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database would have been a legal adventure. With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable to their cause on foreign end users? Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were provided with? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC

5 7

Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
by Michiel Klaver 27 Jul '09

27 Jul '09

At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC >From the document: The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Spectrum and IP address reservations
by tvest＠eyeconomics.com 26 Jul '09

26 Jul '09

On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I forward information about a study conducted by NERA on spectrum > auctions. > Not directly applicable to IP addresses, but has some relevance to > current discussions about attempts to reserve resources for new > entrants vs. incumbents. Bear in mind, of course, that the study was > produced by Telus, an incumbent operator, and discount for that; the > point is that we need to pay attention to the economic reasoning > underlying the finding; which is that policies designed to "help" > competitors can have unintended consequences that may encourage > conslidation and higher prices. Hi Milton, Clarifying question: what are you referring to exactly by "policies designed to 'help' competitors," and why are you choosing to reduce the question of routing and addressing system openness to this one narrow dimension? I (among others) have written a lot about the importances of keeping the door open for "new entrants," but not all new entrants are "competitors" -- nor is competition the only reason for incumbent service providers (and everybody else) to regard such openness as a critical institutional priority. To illustrate, I've never heard anyone claim that the *only* reason why it was a good idea to move from NCP addressing to classful IP was to enable competition. Ditto, the move from classful IP to CIDR; then as before, the prospect of continuous competition (including competition by emerging new entrants) was just one of many reasons to support the preservation of addressing and routing system openness. I'm assuming that whatever you find persuasive in this NERA document would not also implicate those past policy choices, because I don't think you'd find much sympathy for the idea that the "unintended consequences" of those decisions were/are so bad that they outweigh they *intended* consequences (i.e., a future with max. 256 independent addressing and routing system participants). Since most of the subscribers to these lists are not economists, it would be helpful if you could briefly summarize the "underlying economic reasoning" that you find particularly compelling in this study. If it was less onerous, I'd also request that you clarify what you regard to be the right way to balance intended vs. unintended policy choices, and "historically/experientially informed" vs. "idealized, theoretically informed" expectations about the future -- but perhaps a sentence or two of clarification on the NERA "reasoning" would suffice. Thanks, TV

18 33

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
by trejrco＠gmail.com 25 Jul '09

25 Jul '09

That doesn't answer what you believe about all those deploying v6, for whatever reasons they are deploying it ... (Reasons that vary from environment to environment) If you want me to start listing the technical merits of IPv6 I would first point you to a plethora of sources - working groups, RFCs, whitepapers, new product lines and modes of communication, etc. - are you really asking for a single email to encompass 10+ years of work by hundreds+ people? ((I can (and do!) talk about IPv6 for a week at a time and am still time-constrained to present all of the how's, why's, and what's of IPv6 ... The majority of this time is presenting IPv6 things which are technically better than their IPv4 analogs)) FWIW, I would also include entire conversations about how NAT is not a panacea, and already breaks / limits application capabilities, carries 'costs' of it's own (both literal $, packet/forwarding overhead, security), etc. Again - not a single aspect that can readily be presented in a single email (feel free to ref. BEHAVE, for example) Again - I am not opposed to efforts to make NAT more transparent / functional ... PMP, ALD, UPnP, perhaps e2e, etc. - however I see none of these as a replacement for IPv6, nor any other aspect of IPv6 that is a deal-breaker. Imperfections that perhaps need to be mitigated (whether that is a protocol or an implementation 'fix' remains to be seen) - but nothing preventing me (or anyone else) from using v6 today (or, even more common - belated vendor support - ugh). /TJ ------Original Message------ From: Masataka Ohta To: TJ Evans Cc: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space Sent: Jul 23, 2009 18:26 trejrco(a)gmail.com wrote: > I continue to be amazed at statements like: > "Today, it is not necessary to deploy IPv6 at all." > > So, you firmly believe that everyone deploying (or preparing to > deploy) IPv6 today is ... What, wasting time? Wrong? Stupid? As I said: > Technically speaking , so true. > Today, it is not neccesary to deploy IPv6 at all. valid counter arguments to me should have technical content. Masataka Ohta Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

5 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space
by trejrco＠gmail.com 24 Jul '09

24 Jul '09

And obviously you are missing my point. I am hardly saying "This is the year"... I do not think there will a single year that will define / be defined by what boils down to the deployment of better plumbing. Was there ever a "year of www", "year of SMTP", etc.? I think you misunderstand - I do have a fairly long view here, but believe that circumstances have changed | are changing. I could say the same thing about denial, but that leads us down a very non-productive path. Probably best to agree to disagree at this point ... /TJ (Although I am still interested in your (or anyone else's, for that matter) opinion of those deploying / planning to deploy / etc. IPv6 ... ) ------Original Message------ From: Masataka Ohta To: TJ Evans Cc: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: The price of address space Sent: Jul 23, 2009 21:19 TJ wrote: > I do ... and have seen many "This is the year of IPv6" style statements, > which is not what I am saying. > Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree - I see that quite a bit has changed > WRT IPv6. > The protocol itself has been tweaked, the implementations of the protocol > have evolved, the deployment guidelines for both and the understanding of > all three of those things has been escalating rapidly over the last > ~couple-few years ... So obviously, you are saying "This is the year of IPv6". If you could have had a longer retrospective view, you could have noticed that your reasoning has been repeated so many times. Masataka Ohta Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

1 0

2009-02 Proposal Accepted (Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2009-02 has been accepted by the RIPE community. A new RIPE policy document, "Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC", is now published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-476.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html Thank you for your input. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

long term useful life expectancy for IPv4
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

would like to move the discussion to: http://www.longbets.org/about seems like a better place to hold this debate than policy fora. --bill

1 0

2009-06 New Draft Document Published (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Ingrid Wijte 23 Jul '09

23 Jul '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-06 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-06-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 20 August 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer

1 0

NRO NC Call for Nominations
by Axel Pawlik 22 Jul '09

22 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, This is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number council (NC). The term of Dave Wilson, who was elected to the NRO NC in January 2007, ends on 31 December 2009. The election to the NRO NC seat will take place during a Plenary session at the RIPE 59 Meeting to be held in Lisbon, Portugal from 5-9 October 2009. All members of the Internet community who are present at the Plenary session may vote in the election. The deadline for nominations is 9 September 2009. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. Please send your nominations to <nominations(a)ripe.net> by 23:00 UTC on 9 September 2009. All confirmed nominations will be listed on the RIPE NCC website by 11 September 2009. All nominees may submit a written statement in support of their nomination for publication on the RIPE NCC website. Other individuals may express support for nominated individuals by sending an e-mail to <nominations(a)ripe.net>. Expressions of support will also be published on the RIPE NCC website. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2009/ Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
by Remco van Mook 22 Jul '09

22 Jul '09

[resent after it got filtered] Dear all, So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any comments before I formally submit it? Best, Remco Number: (assigned by the RIPE NCC) Policy Proposal Name: Allow smaller initial allocations Author: name: Remco van Mook email: remco.vanmook(a)eu.equinix.com organisation: Equinix Proposal Version: 0.1 Submission Date: July 17, 2009 Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: modify Policy Term: Permanent Summary of proposal: Allow new LIRs to get a smaller initial allocation than the standard at their specific request Policy text: Current (if modify): 5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21. New: 5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21. Consequently, the initial allocation size is /21. However, at the explicit request of the member, a smaller initial allocation up to a /24 can be made. In those cases, the RIPE NCC shall not make efforts to keep adjacent address space available for possible future allocation requests. Rationale: Arguments supporting the proposal Potential LIRs are currently forced to request PI space if they do not require a /21 of address space and want to contribute to the conservation of available global IPv4 resources. This policy change removes that obstacle and reduces the amount of requests for PI space for that purpose. The text looks a bit awkward because this is the only place where the minimum allocation size is specified and I wanted to keep that in - the minimum now being a general rule instead of a hard limit. Arguments opposing the proposal This policy change arguably increases fragmentation. On the other side, PI space assignments are made regardless of the minimum allocation size so the chances of actually increasing fragmentation are minimal. People do filtering based on minimum allocation sizes (I've not seen it in real life but that's the ever-returning argument) but that can be avoided using the ranges normally used for assigning PI for undersized allocations. On 17-07-09 14:02, "Sascha Lenz" <slz(a)baycix.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Remco van Mook schrieb: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> It is heartening to see that your drive to conservation of IPv4 space >> alone is pushing you to put all this effort in to get PI space. I¹m sure >> we can suggest a policy change approved that would set the standard >> initial allocation to /21 but allow for smaller allocations up to /24 if >> specifically requested by the new LIR. > > [...] > > ... apart from the fact that i don't think the whole community agrees > that we need any form of IPv4 conservation anyways :-) ... i think this > would be the apropriate step here, yes. > > I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because > even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i > also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other > simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so). > > > -- > ======================================================================== > = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz(a)baycix.de = > = Network Design & Operations = > = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = > ======================================================================== > > ------ End of Forwarded Message This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

7 10