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

ipv6 assignments
by Nick Hilliard 23 Jun '16

23 Jun '16

Apropos of one of those endless arguments on the Internet (where everything is true, because it says it on the Internet), I had a discussion with Kurtis about the definition of an ipv6 "End Site", which is specified in section 2.9 of RIPE-655. This says: > 2.9. End Site > > An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves: > > - that service provider assigning address space to the End User > - that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites > - that service provider carrying the End User's traffic > - that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment Our reading of this is that each of these conditions is mandatory, i.e. logical AND, because logical OR does not make sense. Term 2.9.2 states that an ipv6 End Site is only an End Site if the service provider is providing transit service for the End User to other sites. Section 5.4 and 5.4.1 then state: > LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following provisions. > > End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. So the policy appears to state that an IPv6 assignment can only be issued to an end user if the end user has a transit service to more than one site, presumably ipv4 because demanding ipv6 connectivity would create a circular requirement. In other words, ipv4 connectivity to multiple different sites appears to be a mandatory prerequisite in order to get an IPv6 assignment. Could someone in the RIPE NCC please confirm that this policy is being policed as stated? And if not, when can we expect all non-compliant assignments in the RIPE NCC service region to be revoked? Nick

5 10

another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy
by Mikael Abrahamsson 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

I just had a thought. What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from getting many /22:s. People have been trying to game this, by getting /22 and closing the LIR, thus avoiding the LIR fee. Changes in the policy has been all about trying to limit transfers etc, setting policy from what should happen with /22s, stopping transfers (so people still have to pay LIR fees, one per /22 etc). Since it's actually the post-exhaustion /22 we're after why not do this: The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived. Doesn't this just solve the problem everybody is arguing about? Now all of a sudden it's not cheap to get multiple /22s, and we don't care any more if people keep their LIRs open or not, it still costs the same. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Arash Naderpour 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

Hi, This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller blocks (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to transfer it out later if they don't need it. I'm opposing the policy, it make unnecessary limitation and put a part of community in an unfair situation. If returning an allocation is something visible it can be done to any allocation, not just the smallest ones. Regards, Arash Naderpour

3 2

Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)
by Nick Hilliard 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

Tore Anderson wrote: > If by some miracle you would be able to pull it all off, keep in mind > that the ~107M addresses gained by the RIPE NCC would all be used up > within two years if we return to the pre-depletion allocation policy > and consumption rate. Ask yourself: «then what?» > > Maybe you can now see why folks are telling you that this would be a > colossal waste of time APWG Chairs, Is there any possibility of creating a FAQ? There are a bunch of issues which are coming up repeatedly, of which this is one. Nick

4 4

IPv4 reserved space
by NTX NOC 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

Dear all, As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use. I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in use at all but that space could be easy used. 240.0.0.0/4 Reserved (former Class E network) RFC 1700 it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M free IPv4 and we all say 185/8 will be enough for 2-3 years and rest - for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years! Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700 Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from such ranges. What does community thinks about it? Yuri

12 23

Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space
by Alexander Koeppe 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

I don't understand how much time and energy is being put into the discussion about keeping vintage IP alive. This time and energy would be better off spent in just deploying v6. It's just not that difficult. You just need to develop a stepwise approach. A one-shot would probably fail. -- Alex > Am 11.06.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>: > > Hi, > >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:14:11PM +0300, NTX NOC wrote: >> About IPv6 - still now in Russia there are no Home ISPs who gives IPv6 >> by default to customers. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it. > > The "nobody needs it" is a misconception. Direct your energy there to > make people understand that IPv4 is game over. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > 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 > <totemomail_info.html> This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted therewith. Click http://www.merckgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.

14 26

2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received). These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several restrictions: - These allocation are not transferrable - LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition - Sub-allocations are not possible - Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 June 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

24 47

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
by Arash Naderpour 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

Hi Jim, Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 2:15 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: IPv6 connectivity in Iran > On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:30, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> wrote: > > As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service providers. > > There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet. there is also no IXP in the country. Well that lack of IPv6 appears to be a major gap in the market and a worthwhile business opportunity with huge growth potential. So is the lack of an in-country IXP. IMO it’s up to the Iranian Internet community to tackle these issues and make the most of these business opporrtunities. It is probably inappropriate for this WG to discuss how to exploit these gaps. They can’t really be helped (or hindered) by RIPE address policy anyway. Mind you if anyone is minded to set up an IXP in Iran, they will have to move quickly if they need/want some IPv4 from the NCC for local interconnect and peering. PS: Apologies for a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.

6 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
by Arash Naderpour 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

The point is that not all countries are the same when it comes to rules , some regulatory or government organizations may force ISPs in some area to stick with IPv4, as they simply don't have IPv6 ready LI platforms. I'm sure that there are some plans to deploy IPv6 in all countries soon or later it would be done (even Iran has a v6 road map), but telling others to go and deploy IPv6 (or it is not difficult to deploy) does not change the fact that there are more limitations out there. anyway, thanks for your thoughtful advises. Regards, Arash P.S even in Australia the biggest service provider (Telstra) is not providing IPv6 service to residential customers as of today, -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 3:42 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: 'Alexander Koeppe' <Alexander.Koeppe(a)merckgroup.com>; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:39:59AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: > And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can deploy > IPv6, it is simply not available everywhere. > It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility. Work with your regulator to *make* it possible - like the rest of the world has. It might take a while, but "not doing anything and complaining that IPv4 has run out" is not the right approach. (You *should* have started to work with your regulator 10+ years ago, it's not like this is coming as a surprise) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Riccardo Gori 12 Jun '16

12 Jun '16

Hi, although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business processes. A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012. I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market. If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible. To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation. I cannot support this policy regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo(a)wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

19 32