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

Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Martin Millnert 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

Hi, I'm looking at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for-lirs/repons… and jump to the conclusion that we're now in final /8 policy land, and IPRAs are out drinking. Whether this conclusion is indeed correct is irrelevant, we at close of business yesterday had 830k remaining addresses above final /8,/13. For those that are not clear on the policy on when final /8 will get enacted, the answer is: as soon as a request is approved that will run into final /8 space to fulfill (ie. minimum a /12, today), final /8 policy will get triggered *before* this allocation is made, and the requestor in question gets the first /22 from the final /8 (if PA request) otherwise nothing (if PI). (consensus from an IRC channel) With that out of the way, there are then no more PI allocations. Ever. (Well, until policy changes.) The result is now that the established market price for an IP address in the RIPE service region is $signup_fee + $first_period / /22, or 1024 addresses. That's roughly ~2.3 EUR / IPv4 address now in Q3, soon Q4. Will go up Q1 next year. (Adjust for my misunderstanding on what the minimum cost is here) This equates to roughly 35M EUR now heading RIPE's way. The question is: Is this a good thing? This will go faster than many anticipated with the current policy. The reason it will go fast is simply along the lines of the following example: Company X wants IPv4; their ordinary LIR (mothership) now simply applies for new-LIR in Company X name, gets a valid minimum alloc, and then just transfers this back to the mothership and new-LIR is retired ASAP. Adjust for shell-companies, etc, and the direct exchange of Money vs IPv4 addresses between RIPE NCC and the "market" has been fast. The only thing I'm not sure on here, which basically only affects the per-IPv4 price, is what the minimum cost of signing-up and then retiring a new LIR is. Should it *not* be a good thing to transfer 35M EUR to the RIPE NCC in max ~1 year time, we could just allow PI again and just be done with this whole thing. Best, Martin

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Tore Anderson 12 Sep '12

12 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published In principle, I support this proposal. Reserving the last /8 to the «LIR clique» is unfair to End Users who are not LIRs, but who may very well have an equally justifiable demand for IPv4 addresses as any LIR. In fact, I feel that the proposal does not go far enough - in my opinion, both LIRs and End Users should be able to get the same amount of address space from the last /8. I note that in the APNIC region, LIRs and End Users can both get up to a /22 from the last /8. I would prefer it if this was the case in the RIPE region as well. That said, I do fear the practical consequences of this proposal. As the possibility to get PA assignments will be dwindling, End Users may look to PI (quite possibly guided there by their ISP who can be a sponsoring LIR). The current difference in pricing between PI and PA address space is a key element of my worry here - a PI assignment costs €50/year, while becoming a LIR and getting the PA /22 would under the proposed 2012 charging scheme cost €1750 (€1000 sign-up fee + €750 yearly fee). In other words, acquiring PA address space is almost nine times as expensive as PI address space. Furthermore End Users may feel it compelling to set up several legal organisations in order to acquire multiple PI assignments from the last /8. This problem is nothing new - under the current policy, an organisation may set up multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s from the last /8, but the expense of RIPE NCC membership is likely balancing out the cost/benefit assessment. The cost of PI address space, on the other hand, is too small to be a disincentive. I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC. So to sum up - I feel that PI assignments should be allowed from the last /8. However, if they are, I strongly feel that they should be priced more or less the same (per address) as getting an allocation from the last /8 through first becoming an LIR. That said, I don't know if APWG have any influence on the NCC's charging scheme at all. Is it possible for this policy to say something along the lines of «joining the NCC and obtaining a PA allocation from the last /8 should cost approximately the same per address as obtaining a PI assignment from the last /8»? Is that in scope of address policy? (Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

4 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Andreas Larsen 11 Sep '12

11 Sep '12

I do NOT support this change. // Andreas Den 2012-09-10 14:16 skrev Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net>: > > > >Dear Colleagues, > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been >published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >has also been published > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Daniel Roesen 11 Sep '12

11 Sep '12

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft I do fully support this proposal. Thanks Nick for bringing up that issue which I missed when the last-/8 policy proposal was on the table. To those who ask for "same price tag" for both PA and PI on grounds of "fairness"... What is fair in asking the same price for what is essentially a one-time operation (PI assignment) compared to the ongoing maintenance of a LIR membership (PA alloc - think about assignment request tickets, yearly billing, etc.)? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

6 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by marcin＠leon.pl 10 Sep '12

10 Sep '12

On 10.09.2012 14:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 Looks good, have my support. Regards, Marcin > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any > comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 10 Sep '12

10 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Sander Steffann 07 Sep '12

07 Sep '12

Dear Address Policy WG, There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the review phase: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, > "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The > Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 31 August 2012. We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to discuss it. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG Co-chair

11 22

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Review Period on Version 2 of Draft Document, for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". After the feedback in the previous review phase, a new draft (2.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The highlights of the changes from the previous version include: -the removal of all unnecessary references to "reverse resolution" -the rewording and simplification of section 4.0 In response to the community's request: -section 3.0 focuses on who is able to ask for the delegation -the reference to the obsolete RFC 2874 has been replaced with the relevant active RFCs The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 3 October 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

Status request : 2012-04 - PI Assignments from the last /8
by Erik Bais 05 Sep '12

05 Sep '12

Hi, Could someone provide insight in the policy 2012-04? With the final /8 within grasp, I would like to have it clear where we stand. Current Phase Ends: 19 July 2012 Current Phase: Discussion Phase: Awaiting Decision from Proposer Awaiting Documentation Regards, Erik Bais

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 04 Sep '12

04 Sep '12

On 9/3/12 3:50 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP? http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po… According to this graph we have one month to go. Cheers, Jan Zorz

5 6