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

2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 18 May '18

18 May '18

Hi all, I've been asked to state what is the problem. I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems I see: 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)". To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an address vs not-prefixes. 2) If the end-device need a /64 instead of a single address, as per RFC8273, then it is breaking the actual policy. 3) If we allow sub-assignments, what is then the difference in between IPv6 PA and PI ? So, I think it is clear we have not just one problem? Now, if we want to go further. Do we have the same problem with IPv4 if, for example a university, instead of using NAT, they also sub-assign public IPv4 addresses to students? Inputs? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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 4

2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 16 May '18

16 May '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-684 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 March 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

11 11

2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 May '18

16 May '18

Hi all, I tried to find the "mismatch" that Peter mention today in the meeting about this proposal text, however was unable to. So, if Peter or somebody else can point to anything more specific, the authors will be happy to provide thougths for alternatives to the mismatching text. Thanks! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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.

1 0

FW: WG chair change
by Erik Bais 12 May '18

12 May '18

Hi Gert, Sander & AP-WG members, Thank you for the email and I would like to formally put my name in the hat. For those that don't know me personally, my name is Erik Bais, Dutch, I'm 45, married for 16 year with my wife Wilhelmina and we have 2 sons. I'm the owner of a Dutch ISP named A2B Internet and I'm one of the co-founders of the IPv4 broker : Prefix Broker. I've lived most of my life in The Netherlands and as a family, we lived for almost a year in the UAE (Dubai) in 2008/2009, when I worked for a US based system integrator and I've worked in Germany for a US based company in the 90's for a year. I have a been working in the ISP community since the 2000. And started A2B Internet in 2010 in The Netherlands. In our work as a connectivity ISP, we started to request AS numbers and IP space for customers in order to get them migrated to our network and while doing so, we noticed some things that needed improvement in the AP policies. That is how it all got started ... I've been the author of the following proposals that have been accepted by the community: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-02 : Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI # co-author together with Jordi https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-04 : Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members # Services WG - allowing PI space holders and Legacy space holders the option for RPKI certification. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-02 : Allow IPv4 PI transfer https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-12 : Allow IPv6 Transfers https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-13 : Allow AS Number Transfers https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 : RIPE Resource Transfer Policies And I've been quite active on the discussions on the mailinglist and in the GM's. Besides the various presentations about the policies, I've also done some presentations in the plenary of the RIPE meetings and different WG's about various topics.. Examples are: https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/116/ : Naughty Port project about a different way of making a peering decision based on Network Naughty-ness using a rating system against DDOS's. https://ripe74.ripe.net/archives/video/119/ : IRR Filtering at IXP Route Servers https://ripe75.ripe.net/archives/video/165/ : Pre-Transfer Clean-Up of Abused Prefixes I really like the RIPE community and as an active policy proposer, I think I can say that I have been around the block on the PDP and can work with the sometimes harsh way of communication that a co-chair role has need to deal with in the heat of some discussions. I understand what it requires in effort from time to time and as I'm living in the Netherlands, it makes it easy to visit the Amsterdam RIPE office for me if needed. I hope that the community appreciates the transparent way of communicating and knowledge sharing that I like and that I will be selected as the co-chair for the AP-WG. Regards, Erik Bais

2 1

IP/ASNs for Governments BoF
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 07 May '18

07 May '18

Hi all, I'd like to call your attention to a BoF that was added to the schedule last week: IP/ASNs for Governments Iljitsch van Beijnum, Logius, Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations The purpose of this BoF is to discuss the needs of government and large organisations when it comes to IPv6 address allocations and ASN assignments. We will cover the ways in which RIPE Policies could be changed to better support these large entities that are often comprised of many independent sub-organisations with their own connections to the Internet. Please also note my (relatively) new affiliation. :-) However, I'm using my old email address here to avoid even more spam. The idea behind this BoF is that governments (and some other very large organizations) find it useful to number all their sub-organizations from a single large block, but these sub-organizations connect to the internet independently. We've done this with the Dutch government-wide IPv6 numbering plan, which provides IPv6 addresses to the national government, but also provinces and cities. In Germany there's also a similar IPv6 numbering plan. However, the RIPE policies don't fit this use case very well. We believe it would be useful to start a discussion with the community to see how this is best addressed. There's also some issues surrounding the use of public AS numbers for very large private networks. I haven't been on this list for a number of years, so if all of this has been discussed recently, my apologies. The full BoF proposal is here: https://ripe76.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/submissions/RIPE-76-IP-ASNs-for-… <https://ripe76.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/submissions/RIPE-76-IP-ASNs-for-…> Iljitsch van Beijnum

2 2

WG chair change
by Gert Doering 07 May '18

07 May '18

Dear AP WG, as announced, my co-chairs of amazingly many years, Sander Steffann, will be stepping down as a WG chair at the next RIPE meeting. Our WG chair selection policy is described here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… according to this, we'll spend a few minutes at the next APWG session in Marseilles to select a new co-chair. To avoid lengthy rounds of introduction at the meeting, I want to ask for volunteers here on the list - please step forward if you want to take up this work, and introduce yourself on why you think you're a good candidate and what your plans for the WG are for the next two years (or longer). A short recap of the WG chairs duties: - chair the APWG session at the RIPE meetings (so generally it is expected that both co-chairs can attend most RIPE meetings and feel halfway confident talking on stage and moderate a discussion) - read - and if necessary, moderate - the APWG mailing list (thus, fluency in written English is necessary, and while discussions are going on, some amount time spent at least every few days) - help policy proposers bring their policy proposal through the PDP (answering questions, helping with the wording of proposed text, spending some time discussing 'next steps' for a proposal) - judge consensus at the end of discussion and review phases according to our policy development process (usually done by both co-chairs together, unless a conflict of interest appears) - help shape the format of RIPE meetings together with all the other WG chairs and the RIPE PC - by mailing list and by attending the "WG chair lunch" on RIPE meeting Thursdays - see also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 A definite plus for an APWG chair is "operational experience with these pesky numbers" - either by operating the address management side (LIR) of an Internet Service Provider or Enterprise network, or by being an address broker, etc. Sander and I have spoken to a few of you who would make good chairs already - but ultimately, it's up the working group to decide. So even if you have spoken to us privately before, please speak up now. So, come forward, dear candidates and make yourself known! :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard 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

WG Chair selection
by Paul Hoogsteder 06 May '18

06 May '18

Hello AP-WG, I don't think I've seen any support for either candidate for the position of WG chair on the list yet. I think Erik Bais is more than qualified for such a position, he's been active in the RIPE community and this working group for years and has made many valuable contributions. +many for Erik! Best regards, Paul Hoogsteder Meanie AS31019 Breedband Delft AS34108

13 12

inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 04 May '18

04 May '18

Hi all, As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants. Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list: 1. Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point in 3-5 years. 2. Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits, 13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits, 49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E. 3. Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A. 4. 48-(A+E) = prefix size. Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites. E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24. So, would you agree in doing something on this line? Thanks in advance for any inputs! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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 6

2018-03 New Policy Proposal (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-03, "Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to fix outdated information in the RIPE Policy "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

4 3

2018-04 New Proposal (PDP Clarification) to be discussed on RIPE Discussion Mailing List
by Marco Schmidt 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE proposal, 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" has been published on the RIPE Discussion mailing list for discussion. This proposal aims to clarify the options available to the WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). Please note that since changes to the PDP can affect all RIPE Working Groups, the RIPE Chair decided to discuss this proposal on the RIPE Discussion mailing list. The RIPE Chair will also moderate the proposal discussion. We wanted to notify the Address Policy Working Group in particular, as most of the policy proposals are discussed here. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and join the discussion on the RIPE Discussion mailing list (ripe-list(a)ripe.net). Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0