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

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by James Blessing 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: > You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single downstream > Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a /24. > This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that > allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a > downstream network operator. Okay So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further sub-allocations? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

12 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

>> I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? > We LIR. We need sub-allocation to allocate IP-networks to our clients (ISP). You are not the only LIR! >>You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? >We specialised on IPs. Just one of the best service regards IP addresses. Fast and good price. This is reason why ISP goes to us and work with us. I’m not sure that you are right. My company is also a LIR and serve our customers without problems. In Russia there a a lot of LIRs and I don’t think you are the only “right” and “kind” company on the market. >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide this IPs. They will give us this work. Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? >>If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. >What special do you see in using IP space by another LIR? I just see in nearest future. While people have demand and we can make rules and regulate it. Or think that market not exist and we will see what happend... Because LIR is not for using – it is for distributing! Market, market… I’m not afraid of market – we are living in market all life. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! >> I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC > >made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are > >not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least > >in Russia)! >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. URL: http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ <http://www.leadertelecom.nl/> - IP- addresses URL: http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl <http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl> - WildCard SSL certificates 15.10.2012 14:31 - написал(а): Dear Alexey, I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least in Russia)! Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:56 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is not just "may". It is real case. Permanenent transfer cost 10USD per 1 IP. It is too high. We won't pay this money. We ready pay monthly. It this case the best way to give legal IPs for us - make "sub allocation". But we have restricion in policy - another LIR can sub-allocate only /20 every twelve months. This is too small size. While we need assign now in several times more. And as soon as we will assign this space - we will receive additional requests, but the same supplier by current policy can't give us additional networks while he can do it only one time in twelve months. About "may" - it was an example when can be sub-allocated all space. While Gert Doering wrote about this case. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 14:51 - написал(а): And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl <mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl> ] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Randy Bush 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

>> i have given multi-year loans, admittedly not transfers as they did not >> exist at the time, a number of times. i have space out on loan now. > > What records did you use for that? I mean "Assigned PA", > "Sub-allocated PA", etc? And how many IPs? as the space is not in the ripe region, with 39 flavors of integers, your question is not answerable. randy

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Review Phase for this document has ended. After the feedback received, the Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to move into the Last Call period for comments. This period will last until 26 October 2012. We encourage you to read this merged version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 26 October 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Sander Steffann 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Hi, > Lets check RIPE-530: > > > Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a > > permanent or non-permanent basis. > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of > > the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. > > For temporary transfer we make 2 transfers: 1. from LIR A to LIR B. .... 2. Form LIR B to LIR A (back). While address space may not transfer it on within 24 months, so we can't transfer back earlier than in 2 years. Ah, there is the misunderstanding. Giving back the address space is not a separate transfer. It's part of the original (temporary) transfer. This rule is only to prevent people from selling addresses on. - Sander

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

6 11

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

>For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
by Octavio Alfageme 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear all, According to RIPE552 LIRs may easily request the extension of its IPv6 /32 initial allocation up to a /29. However, if we take a look at the reservation made for some initial /32 allocations, we find that it is /30. For instance (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest): ripencc|FR|ipv6|2a00:7900::|32|20110214|allocated ripencc|NL|ipv6|2a00:7940::|32|20120118|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7980::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|DE|ipv6|2a00:79c0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|NO|ipv6|2a00:7a00::|32|20110120|allocated ripencc|GB|ipv6|2a00:7a40::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|AT|ipv6|2a00:7a80::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7ac0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|ES|ipv6|2a00:7b00::|32|20110214|allocated In case any of this LIRs wants to request the extension to /29, would he receive a 'brand new' /29 and will have to give its original /32 back? I would be grateful if you could clarify me the process. No need to say that my company is one of the LIRs affected by this situation. Kind regards Octavio Alfageme

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
by pooranmittal 06 Oct '12

06 Oct '12

Hi, Myself Pooran Mittal, member of APNIC [IMCL-IN] with AS 17665. How RIPE can help me to get IPV4 addresses. Please help me. Regards Pooran Mittal ----- Original Message ----- From: <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4 > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 2. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Sander Steffann) > 3. Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and > simple re-using IP-addresses (James Blessing) > 4. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Richard Hartmann) > 5. 2012-06 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced > (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion) (Emilio Madaio) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:20:58 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <506C2DAA.3040509(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/3/12 1:41 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 12:55:53PM +0200, Marcin Kuczera wrote: >>> I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would >>> allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? >> >> "Too controversial to go forward". > > It is a "yes" or "no" question, afaik :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:17:43 +0200 > From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <A3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88(a)steffann.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hello Marcin, > >> I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would >> allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? > > You can find the status here: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > The policy proposal is in the review phase and under discussion until the > 8th of October. > > Sander Steffann > APWG co-chair > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:01:50 +0100 > From: James Blessing <james.blessing(a)despres.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] > Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAL5RSTKfm-c1O2k3q9jC01u_YK9-Az_7tfTW9DAFpzY04p9xVQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: >> You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single >> downstream >> Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a >> /24. >> This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that >> allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a >> downstream network operator. > > Okay > > So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per > annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further > sub-allocations? > > J > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:15:35 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Cc: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gRkADX31OdFWdT_bt6kwPSo3ZyzNtvAbT-y=75E3Dbg1A(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I can't inline my replies on Android, sorry. > > The official status page is of limited use in this context, but the > official date/timeline _is_ good to be reminded of; thanks. > > PS: I didn't attend and simply stole the 66 from Nick ;) > > Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity. >

2 1

Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Marcin Kuczera 05 Oct '12

05 Oct '12

hello, I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? Regards, Marcin

7 10