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

IPv4 waiting list policy
by Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. 17 Dec '21

17 Dec '21

Hey Denis Walker, in 2019 until the end of december the last /22 allocation was assigned to the members/Lirs, once the ripe stopped assigning /22, there was not that much interest in 2020 for only a /24 subnet. And no, it was not free! Since in 2021 the price per IP skyrocketed, and ripe announced that they are out of stock, due because of this and due because the price per IP is going to the moon, the LIRs (mostly big boys) with multiple allocations started to apply for more and believe me they are making a good profit from this. For now is 200€/month is the price for /24 subnet to rent out, and it will be higher and higher. Cheers. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

8 10

Fwd: IPv4 waiting list policy
by Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. 16 Dec '21

16 Dec '21

Hello Gert, appreciate your response, i do believe that you started to care when something is dead now trying to bring to life! On most replies here are only shooting on newcomers/lirs in which no new lir is getting more than a /24, and nobody is talking for those lirs that have multiple resources /16, /17, /20, /21, /22 etc, in which you can clearly see that there is no usage of it by theirself but only leasing/renting them out to those who cannot effort to be LIR and even if they effort it, cannot get more than a /24 allocation. There must be a policy in which it will stop those behaviours of LIRs, if you don't need that much of resource, then return it simple as that, and prevent them from leasing out to people like us. I was working as an IT in one of University in which it has a /16 allocation, and only in use less than a /24, all remaining resource is leased out with monthly fee of course. Of course, if you check every single University in the world has min /15, /16 allocation what for? There are many countries like ours in which IPv6 is nowhere implemented yet, and there are many applications in which is not yet ready for IPv6. So therefore, i hope that this would be considered. Cheers. On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 7:46 PM Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:03:05PM +0100, Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. via > address-policy-wg wrote: > > Very interesting! Good catch. And thank you for the information > provided, i > > personally believe that there is no help as because nobody cares at least > > not the RIPE NCC itself. I do believe that we all are wasting our time > > here, as long as my small company need a /22 allocation and cannot get > it, > > it's worthless. We are renting them from others in order to survive! > > If you have read this thread, you might have noticed that people *do* care. > > It's just not very clear what can be done, at this point in time, which > will have a positive effect. > > There's lots of things that can be done that have negative effects > (like, etra bureaucracy, which increases costs, which then leads to > complaints about, well, bureaucracy) but have very little effect on > the problem statement: networks getting "more than one /24" for the > same entity. > > The problem statement is not as clear cut as it might seem... if a parent > company opens a new subsidiary in every european country, which has their > own network, budget, CEO... shouldn't they be entitled to have a LIR > account and a /24 for each subsidiary? > > > ... and, of course, it's not like we haven't been telling people since > 15+ years that IPv4 is going to run out, and they should use IPv6. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

1 0

IPv4 waiting list policy
by Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. 12 Dec '21

12 Dec '21

Hello there, it is interesting to see that everyone is shooting to newcomers/new LIRs and nobody is talking about existing one, it is not the issue to prevent transfer resources, the issue is that almost 70% of members that have multiple /20, /21, /22, /24, are renting the IPs. They took from RIPE and renting out at minimal 150 upto 200€/month for a /24 subnet. The same thing happen to us, as a small company that we cannot get more than a /24 subnet we are forced to rent IPs from those who have multiple LIR accounts and alot of IPs for mentioned price. By implementing the non-transfer resources from newcomers/LIRs you will not solve anything, or maybe a less precentage, but you will not stop big boys with alot of resources to rent them with 200€/month (for now, the price will go up) for a /24 subnet. I do agree with Rick Bakker posts. Kind Regards, Mentor L. -- *Sinqerisht / Sincerely,* AlbHost [image: Logo] <https://www.albahost.net/> Albanian Hosting SH.P.K. Besim Beka p.n. 50000 Gjakovë, Kosovë. NIPT/VAT ID: 811442657 T: +386900501502 E: info(a)albahost.net W*: *wWw.AlbaHost.Net <http://www.albahost.net/> [image: Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/albanianhosting> [image: Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/albahost> [image: Instagram icon] <https://www.instagram.com/albahost_vpn/> [image: Banner] Përmbajtja e këtij emaili është konfidenciale dhe ka për qëllim marrësin e specifikuar vetëm në mesazh. Ndalohet rreptësisht shpërndarja e ndonjë pjese të këtij mesazhi me ndonjë palë të tretë, pa pëlqimin me shkrim të dërguesit. Nëse e keni marrë këtë mesazh gabimisht, ju lutemi përgjigjuni këtij mesazhi dhe ndiqni me fshirjen e tij, në mënyrë që të sigurohemi që një gabim i tillë të mos ndodhë në të ardhmen. The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

1 0

IPv4 waiting list policy
by Diederik de Zee 08 Dec '21

08 Dec '21

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
by Rick Bakker 08 Dec '21

08 Dec '21

Dear colleagues, While it is really interesting to see that the waiting list is primarily used as a means of extension for existing LIRs, it would be rather more interesting to look at the current size of the respective LIRs. It makes a lot of sense for a small LIR holding a single /24 to open a second and request a secondary /24. Effectively, holding a /23 worth of IPv4 space is still negligible in comparison to some of our fellow LIRs holding a trifold of that. It seems a countermeasure to restrict every single new /24 allocation in terms of a transfer. It will only prevent new colleagues in order for them to grow and excel in their various new concepts. I would personally strongly advocate restrictions, but only for those who already ‘hold a lot’. It is simply unfair to limit new entrepreneurs in their ventures by throwing monetary bars that hold them back in potential growth. This will only really benefit the bigger colleagues among us, as the new small ‘fish’ are unable to compete because they lack resources to deliver a proper alternative. As such, I would rather propose a maximum amount of /24s (through new memberships) to be requested through the current waiting list policy by a single entity in a given time frame. It is not unrealistic to limit this at a single /24 per e.g. six months. This would result throwing the real ‘hoarders’ under the bus, by not facilitating their hunger for obtaining IPv4 ‘at the cheap’, while still allowing ‘legitimate’ new members to grow by allocating them the resources they need. Also, let’s not forget that while the IPv4 waiting list hands out IPv4 from the RIPE NCC ‘free’ pool, the amount of IPv4 that is recovered is very limited and will probably be even more limited in the foreseeable future. It would make a lot more sense to push at recovering more space, that can than be handed to new colleagues in a more fair, somewhat more restrictive way. Just by looking at some public looking glasses, I can find examples of hobbyist / amateur associations that hold a /16, while it seems not nearly a quarter of that is in active use. While it has been rejected a lot of times before, and another shot at it likely won’t make a difference, the real way to recover IPv4 space, seems to be by putting monetary sanctions on free space. Think of this in terms of changing the way the RIPE NCC does their billing. At current, every single LIR, no matter its size, pays the same contribution towards our association. This policy does NOT push fellow members into returning space they no longer need, or won’t need in the foreseeable future, as holding it does not cost anything. When replacing the current billing scheme into a more flexible billing scheme where each individual IPv4 held can and will be billed, the organisations that do not need the space will return the free space. After all: why pay for resources that you do not need, and won’t need? Of course, for smaller LIRs, this impact won’t be significant. But picture a LIR holding several /16s, of which only a couple of /24 prefixes are in active use? At a small fee of say 10 euro cents per IPv4 address, returning half of a /16, would mean an annual reduction of costs by 6K. Such amount is not that significant, but big enough to push smaller LIRs that hold such an amount of unused space, to return the unused parts. Such a policy could free up a lot of unused space that can then be redistributed to our new colleagues through a more restrictive waiting list mechanism. In this current discussion, some of our fellow colleagues have a tendency to ignore identifying a problem, because they believe IPv4 will ‘die’ on a short term. Let’s face it: at current, a proper hosting service cannot be delivered without IPv4. Of course, there is a steady growth to be identified in global IPv6 usage, this does not mean we can simply have new colleagues ‘wait’ another ten years or so before their IPv6-only services can be seen as mature enough for production use. To wrap up my argument: the sole way of resolving this matter is by having the older LIRs be lenient enough to help recover space by returning it, and redistributing it in a fair manner. It is often said that. The current ‘guild’ of network engineers like to see the next generation grow up, and show interest in their very interesting field. I, myself, at the young age of 21, identify myself as such. But without any leniency from their end to help give everyone a fair chance at starting their own online ventures, by means of allocating at least the most essential resources for them to get going, this will only get harder and harder in the years to come. Yes, my stance will generate a lot of resistance, I am sure, by exactly the group I mentioned that will in this matter show a lack of lenience. But please, all, let’s take a stance that is serious and will help us all along in times of the ‘real-real-real’ scarce of IPv4 in our service region. Regards, Rick Bakker

1 0

Review of IPv6 Policy Goals
by Leo Vegoda 29 Nov '21

29 Nov '21

Dear Address Policy WG, This is the promised message to begin a review of the IPv6 Policy Goals, following the introduction of the subject during our session at RIPE 83. Several people have already spoken up and stated their intent to participate. We’d like to invite everyone interested to respond to the questions below, so we can gauge the WG’s interest in this subject and plan the next steps on that basis. For those who were unable to attend the session, the slides can be found here: https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/37-RIPE-83-APWG-IP… And the video recording is here: https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/644 You can find the goals in full in our current IPv6 policy document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738#3 There are two main motivations for this discussion. Firstly, the world around us has changed over the 20 years since the goals were integrated into the policy. Secondly, the RIPE NCC is guided by these goals when it implements policy. If there is some degree of executive discretion on how to implement a policy then the RIPE NCC's people will do their best to implement a policy in a way that achieves the overall policy goals. This means that any changes to the IPv6 policy goals could have two impacts: 1) The RIPE NCC might adjust its implementation of one or more existing policies so that those implementations work towards the updated goals. 2) People in the RIPE community might identify a need for policy changes and initiate a policy discussion. The specific questions we'd like to ask the community to discuss are: A) Are all of the goals still relevant? B) Should the priority or wording of goals change? C) Does our changing world require new goals? Responses in support of keeping the goals unchanged are just as welcome as responses indicating that a change is necessary. We look forward to reading your thoughts. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling
by Adrian Bolster 29 Nov '21

29 Nov '21

Good day to you! All important information you asked for you can find in the document via the link below. 1)dancetvshow.com/laboriosamporro/quiadolorum-4312207 2)meralawfirm.com/inventoreodit/sedeos-4312207 The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-ad… That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi> Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31 To: Jake Brander <jake(a)brandergroup.net>, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi Jake, Thanks for your comment. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough. In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts.. Best Regards, Ray One of the IPv6 wg co chairs https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6 Hanki Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Jake Brander <jake(a)brandergroup.net> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>; Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago. The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available.. How do we get people to actually use it? All the best, Jake Brander President | Brander Group Inc. O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266 jake(a)brandergroup.net | www.brandergroup.net<http://www.brandergroup.net> <http://www.brandergroup.net> Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More <https://brandergroup.net/2021/08/brander-group-ranked-6-on-inc-5000-in-2021/> On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of gert(a)space.net> wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality. > > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education. > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy. > > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :) This! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 For Internal Use Only

1 1

do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"?
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Hi all, After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discussion and the recent discussions on this, as I just mention, should we work in a policy proposal to amend the internal procedure so the justification for additional LIRs is stronger? I understand many cases for the need of an additional LIR, but doing valid for *any artificial case* is not good. Any though on that? Possible ideas about how we define the border line? As usual, I'm happy to work on this myself, or together with other folks. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

4 5

Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions
by Wolfgang Zenker 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Greetings, in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an amount that is not visible to the other bidders. - highest bid wins. Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly quarantined address block to start their business. Regards, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info(a)punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: Jürgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285

8 13

IPv6 Stockpiling
by James Kennedy 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

[changed mail client alias\author to my name, apologies for duplication] Hi, Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4 stockpiling. - when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s) to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de facto local RIRs) - this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee - as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy. Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not, how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership category)? Regards, James apwg co-chair

2 1