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

informal discussion about removing 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 22 May '19

22 May '19

Hi all, As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as part of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved consensus on removing the equivalent text. ARIN has also changed this. In my opinion, the way they handle it, is too complex and not needed, but if someone want to read: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-8-2-2-extra-large-sites I've not (yet) done this in RIPE because I thought it is a so small change that doesn't make sense to tackle alone, but this morning I heard otherwise. So ... here we are. By the way, as I always state, I will love some other folks that are willing to contribute, if so let me know in private so we can even organize an on-site meeting. However, in this case I think this policy proposal is just an "empty" one (only remove text, so nothing to draft ...) ... see below. This is our actual text (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assignments_shorter): *** 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site When a single End Site requires an assignment shorter than a /48, it must request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional prefixes exceeding a /48 assignment for a single End Site will be processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level. Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of multiple network prefixes to the same End Site. Having the RIR review all such assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some experience has been gained and some common policies can be developed. In addition, additional work at defining policies in this space will likely be carried out in the near future. *** In my opinion (as I've done in other RIRs), we should just *remove* the complete section. Extreme example case. If an LIR decides to assign /47 to all their customers, and in the future, they need to come back to the NCC for more space, they will need to justify it according to the existing policy at that time. I may understand (even if I don't agree) that somebody want to have the NCC keep doing some evaluation on this. If we want to go this way, we will need to define with a short text what we want. So, opinions? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

2 1

2019-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by Marco Schmidt 20 May '19

20 May '19

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"". This proposal made it clear in the IPv4 Policy that the status "ASSIGNED PA" can also be used for assignments to an LIR's infrastructure. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-720 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-720 This proposal is implemented with immediate effect. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2019-01 Last Call for Comments (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by Marco Schmidt 15 May '19

15 May '19

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal aims to make it clear in the IPv4 Policy that the status "ASSIGNED PA" can also be used for assignments to an LIR's infrastructure. The WG co-chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 14 May 2019 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 May 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

Agenda for APWG meeting in Reykjavik
by Gert Doering 10 May '19

10 May '19

Dear working group, dear RIPE meeting folks, Below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Reykjavik in the side-room (!) in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 22, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 22, 11:00 - 12:30 We have two time slots, and the agenda is currently very light. So if you have something you want to see discussed (which is *address policy* related, so no member fee discussions or database stuff :-) ), please approach Erik or me to see whether this would be a good opportunity. Regards, Gert Döring & Erik Bais, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG chair rotation / re-seating - longest-serving chair (Gert Döring) stepping down - finding a new one or keeping the old one C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - 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 RIPE 77 - brief overview of new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Nikolas Pediaditis (+ discussion with the group) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F. Discussion of open policy proposals * 2019-02 Waiting List & Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24 Y. Open Policy Hour The Open Policy Hour 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 -- 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

4 5

Application for AS number
by Aled Morris 08 May '19

08 May '19

Hi all I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS guidelines RIPE-679, specifically: *A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.* The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed* before an AS can be issued. This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me. Surely the intention *to become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number? I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS number. Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first? Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear? Aled

10 19

AP WG co-chair selection - call for volunteers
by Erik Bais 22 Apr '19

22 Apr '19

Dear working group, Introduction ------------ We will be starting the selection process for the RIPE Address Policy working group co-chair soon. This mail provides information about the process and the call for volunteers. Current Address Policy Working Group Chair Selection Process ------------------------------------------------- The AP working group chair selection process is documented here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… We have 2 co-chairs and each chair's term is 2 years. About the Process -------------------- Typically until last year, Sander and Gert did this dance together and it was never an actual selection process.. That is, until Sander decided to step down and not run again. To avoid people start on the ML about who they like to support at the beginning with the initial volunteers only, we will do a short call for volunteers of 10 days, by asking the volunteers to send their motivation and intro to the AP-WG Chair email address. ( ap-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net ) Please submit an intro / bio plus motivation, that you understand the impact of being selected as Co-Chair and your intention to be present at the next RIPE meetings before : April 15, 2019 We will then release the names and statements of all applicants after the call for co-chair volunteers closes. And at that time the WG can provide input on the Mailing list on who they like to support as their co-chair. Or if there is specific opposition to a participant, that can also be voiced. For full transparency, it is possible that Gert's name will be added to the list in random order. The actual appointment will be discussed and decided at the next AP session at the RIPE meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. And if that isn't somehow possible, a secret ballot will be done by attendees IN the room and counted by the RIPE NCC staff. As always, please feel free to reach out to any of the chairs directly, to us as a group at mailto:ap-wg-chairs@ripe.net, or discuss this or any other any relevant topic on this mailing list. On behalf of your co-chairs Gert Doering and Erik Bais, Kind regards, Erik Bais

2 3

Clarification of Address Policy wording, Take 3...
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 22 Apr '19

22 Apr '19

Colleagues We really need some help from you guys who understand, and possibly wrote, (parts of) the IPv4 address policy. The most confusing part is this: 6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users. Perhaps to some of you the intent of this is clear. But when I read these words I see ambiguity. Does the policy only require (tech/admin/abuse) contacts, or does it require publishing some details about who is operating the network? Help desks can be outsourced. So tech/admin/abuse contacts may not directly relate to the 'End User'. The policy appears to ask for contact details of the 'End User'. Also the second sentence is referring to the 'End User' as an individual or an organisation. Substitute that back into the first sentence and this policy is asking for 'contact details of the individual or organisation'. This is not the same as the tech/admin/abuse contacts. So what does anyone else understand from this wording? Or maybe the question should now be 'what details need to be published in the RIPE Database about these End Users, for what purpose and who needs it?'. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

3 3

2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by Marco Schmidt 13 Apr '19

13 Apr '19

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to make it clear in the IPv4 Policy that the status "ASSIGNED PA" can also be used for assignments to an LIR's infrastructure. The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 April 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

14 13

Clarification of policy requirements for contact information
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 12 Apr '19

12 Apr '19

Colleagues, Elvis, James and myself have started talking about personal data in the RIPE Database. I said we would bring sub issues to the community when we need direction or clarification. We looked at three policy documents maintained by AP-WG and have a few questions. Before we look at WHERE and HOW the data is stored, we would like to get community feedback on exactly WHAT contact details should be published as per current policies? Below are the quotes and links to the 3 policy documents we looked at. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG In the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-708) [1] first mention about contact data is 4.0: "4.0 Registration Requirements All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support network operations. Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid. Registration of objects in the database is the final step in making an allocation or assignment. Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." and then in 6.2: "6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure. These addresses do not have to be registered with the End User's contact details but can be registered as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure. When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users. [...]" In the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (ripe-707) [2] the requirement is even more vague in 3.3: "3.3. Registration Internet address space must be registered in a registry database accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to End Users. The goal of registration should be applied within the context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws." The "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" [3] does not mention anything about contact data requirements. [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-708[2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707[3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679

5 6

RIPE 77 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 77 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-77-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0