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

FW: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
by Stream Service 06 May '10

06 May '10

-----Original Message----- From: Mark Scholten [mailto:mark@streamservice.nl] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:21 AM To: 'Marcus.Gerdon'; 'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net' Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > admin(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marcus.Gerdon > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:43 AM > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on > IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space > > In the scenario described here I'd tend to think the colocation/housing > provider imho is going for ISP bussiness. > > Handing out chunks of address space to customers, which are supposedly > going to be single-homed, documenting them etc. sounds like LIR > business. Multi-homing these chunks independent of wether they are PI > or PA gets to the 'sub-allocation' topic - which isn't supposed to be > done using parts of a PI space *assigned* to another party. Who's going > to handle abuse and what ever else might come from the address usage? > > My opinion I'm led to by this scenario is that there's someone who > wants to circumvent the administrative tasks and save a few $$$ by > doing ISP/LIR bussiness within PI space. > > Accordingly I think the policy should be kept at (noted at a quick) > > - single address for connecting a customers server > => PI > - prefix routed onto customers server > => *no* PI - go for LIR > - prefix/range further distributed by customer himself > => *no* PI - go for LIR > - contained /64 (!) segment (i.e. dedicated vlan for a customers rack) > => I think somewhat of a border case, but tend to *no* PI > > Surely everyone wanting to can become a LIR, and everyone wanting to > hand out chunks of address space to other parties is able to request an > allocation, or did I miss something? > > @Mark: > >>PA IPv6 address space is currently not available for us > Why's that? Sorry for asking a possibly obvisous question, but going > over the PA policies now I'm simply to lazy. :) Becoming a LIR is from a business economics view not good for us and the network we use doesn't offer IPv6 PA, so the only option left without moving to another network is to use IPv6 PI. But if we are required to be a LIR we will also require more IPv4 IP space so we have enough for the future. Is it a target by preventing us to use IPv6 PI to use the last IPv4 IPs as fast as possible? We currently not even use a /22 IPv4 space, but when we need to become a LIR we will look for ways to get more IPv4 space. Regards, Mark > > I can remember that there's been a discussion quite some time ago where > someone stated he's not able/allowed the LIR contracts with RIPE due to > regulatory/legal issue or something like that. In case something like > this is the underlying reason why PI is used for ISP/LIR bussiness then > imho RIPE/NCC should look into solving this 'organizational' problem > directly instead of bending policies around making PI into PA lite. > > Just my 2c. > > regards, > > Marcus > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > Engineering IP Services > > Versatel West GmbH > Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 > D-44143 Dortmund > > Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 > marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Mai 2010 14:47 > > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE > > Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space > > > > > > > - With IPv6 we would like to offer a client (collocation) at > > > least a /112 (with PI this isn't allowed if I'm correctly informed) > > > > This points out a material difference between IPv6 and IPv4. > > > > IPv6 is classful. Normally, ISPs get a /32 class allocation and > > give their customers /48 class assignments. Currently the PI policy > > comes from wanting to allow organizations to get a /48 class > > assignment from RIPE directly. But if the organization is involved > > in the hosting business, it is conceivable that customers will > > expect to receive a /48 class block from the data centre operator. > > > > Forget whether this is allowed or not because that is irrelevant. > > The point is that in the IPv6 world there is the expectation that > > no network will ever get less than a /64. In a data centre > environment > > one would expect that people renting a server or even a rack, would > > be satisfied with a /64. But people renting a room, or a row of > racks, > > might justifiably demand a /48 for their own internal subnetting and > > routing, even if much of it happens on virtual routers and switches. > > With the increasing number of cores per chip, even an organization > > renting a full rack might need more than a /64 because they need > > to have a network hierarchy within their rack. > > > > The problem is that /48 class blocks can't be stretched. In IPv4, > > there are no classes and everyone allocates according to strict needs > > now and in the very near future. But IPv6 has classes and allocates > > so that 99% of allocations can be permanent and never have to be > > expanded. > > > > We would not want organizations asking for a /40 PI allocation this > > year, then returning next year for another /40, and the year > > after that. > > > > The only way out that I can see is to treat a data centre like an ISP > > and offer organizations one /32 for each data centre that > > they operate. > > This would not apply to WAN operators since they can ask RIPE > > for a /30 > > or a /28 to cover all of their WAN and all data centres, then > allocate > > internally at whatever bit boundary is appropriate. > > > > One thing that RIPE should never accept is any plan that assigns less > > than > > /64 to a network. If such a plan is submitted, it should be > > returned and > > the applicant should be requested to expand any longer prefixes to a > > full > > /64, then resubmit. In other words, if you ask for too few addresses, > > RIPE > > should deny the request, because it is not in line with IPv6 > > architecture. > > > > > > --Michael Dillon > > > >

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
by Marcus.Gerdon 06 May '10

06 May '10

In the scenario described here I'd tend to think the colocation/housing provider imho is going for ISP bussiness. Handing out chunks of address space to customers, which are supposedly going to be single-homed, documenting them etc. sounds like LIR business. Multi-homing these chunks independent of wether they are PI or PA gets to the 'sub-allocation' topic - which isn't supposed to be done using parts of a PI space *assigned* to another party. Who's going to handle abuse and what ever else might come from the address usage? My opinion I'm led to by this scenario is that there's someone who wants to circumvent the administrative tasks and save a few $$$ by doing ISP/LIR bussiness within PI space. Accordingly I think the policy should be kept at (noted at a quick) - single address for connecting a customers server => PI - prefix routed onto customers server => *no* PI - go for LIR - prefix/range further distributed by customer himself => *no* PI - go for LIR - contained /64 (!) segment (i.e. dedicated vlan for a customers rack) => I think somewhat of a border case, but tend to *no* PI Surely everyone wanting to can become a LIR, and everyone wanting to hand out chunks of address space to other parties is able to request an allocation, or did I miss something? @Mark: >>PA IPv6 address space is currently not available for us Why's that? Sorry for asking a possibly obvisous question, but going over the PA policies now I'm simply to lazy. :) I can remember that there's been a discussion quite some time ago where someone stated he's not able/allowed the LIR contracts with RIPE due to regulatory/legal issue or something like that. In case something like this is the underlying reason why PI is used for ISP/LIR bussiness then imho RIPE/NCC should look into solving this 'organizational' problem directly instead of bending policies around making PI into PA lite. Just my 2c. regards, Marcus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Mai 2010 14:47 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE > Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space > > > > - With IPv6 we would like to offer a client (collocation) at > > least a /112 (with PI this isn't allowed if I'm correctly informed) > > This points out a material difference between IPv6 and IPv4. > > IPv6 is classful. Normally, ISPs get a /32 class allocation and > give their customers /48 class assignments. Currently the PI policy > comes from wanting to allow organizations to get a /48 class > assignment from RIPE directly. But if the organization is involved > in the hosting business, it is conceivable that customers will > expect to receive a /48 class block from the data centre operator. > > Forget whether this is allowed or not because that is irrelevant. > The point is that in the IPv6 world there is the expectation that > no network will ever get less than a /64. In a data centre environment > one would expect that people renting a server or even a rack, would > be satisfied with a /64. But people renting a room, or a row of racks, > might justifiably demand a /48 for their own internal subnetting and > routing, even if much of it happens on virtual routers and switches. > With the increasing number of cores per chip, even an organization > renting a full rack might need more than a /64 because they need > to have a network hierarchy within their rack. > > The problem is that /48 class blocks can't be stretched. In IPv4, > there are no classes and everyone allocates according to strict needs > now and in the very near future. But IPv6 has classes and allocates > so that 99% of allocations can be permanent and never have to be > expanded. > > We would not want organizations asking for a /40 PI allocation this > year, then returning next year for another /40, and the year > after that. > > The only way out that I can see is to treat a data centre like an ISP > and offer organizations one /32 for each data centre that > they operate. > This would not apply to WAN operators since they can ask RIPE > for a /30 > or a /28 to cover all of their WAN and all data centres, then allocate > internally at whatever bit boundary is appropriate. > > One thing that RIPE should never accept is any plan that assigns less > than > /64 to a network. If such a plan is submitted, it should be > returned and > the applicant should be requested to expand any longer prefixes to a > full > /64, then resubmit. In other words, if you ask for too few addresses, > RIPE > should deny the request, because it is not in line with IPv6 > architecture. > > > --Michael Dillon > >

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal
by Toni Stoev 05 May '10

05 May '10

On Wednesday 05 May 2010 at 11:15:36 Rob Blokzijl sent: > > [apologies for duplicate mails] > > Dear RIPE, > > soon there will be no more IPv4. However, we still have a registry > of these addresses. Perhaps you mean "no more unallocated IPv4 addresses". > > Daniel Karrenberg and myself have produced a document (attached to > this mail) which describes what we think the role of this registry > should be after the runout of the unallocated IPv4 address space. > > We will present this document in the Address Policy WG, and would > like to invite you to let us know your thoughts. The place for > further discussion will be <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. > > Thank you for your attention, > > Rob Blokzijl

1 0

Final Agenda for upcoming APWG meeting at RIPE 60
by Sander Steffann 04 May '10

04 May '10

Hi APWG folks, Hi RIPE meeting folks, below you can find the final RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Prague in the following three time slots: Wednesday, May 5, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 5, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, May 6, 14:00 - 15:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". regards, Sander Steffann, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz - overview over concluded proposals 2009-03 [run out fairly] - accepted 2008-06 Use of final /8 - withdrawn 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate - withdrawn IPv6 Deployment - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. New Proposals since RIPE 59 -> Discussion of open policy proposals, Part 1 (new proposals) 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policy (Nick Hilliard) 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron) This proposal replaces 2008-06 (Philip Smith) and 2009-04 (Alain Bidron). Warning: The previous version of the agenda mentioned that this will be discussed on Thursday. The discussion has been moved back here. 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP (Dave Wilson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Filiz Yilmaz - feedback received on the first set of changes - how to go forward? L. "Authorship of RIPE Policy Documents" - Filiz Yilmaz This presentation seeks to reach community agreement on how to document and acknowledge the role of people that propose changes to RIPE Internet Resource Allocation and Assignment policies. M. "Update what's happening with ITU and the RIRs" - Axel Pawlik This presentation has been moved to the Cooperation Working Group. N. Differences between IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI (open discussion, based on Alex Le Heux' report at RIPE59) - try to come up with consensus on what we think "IPv6 PI" should be used for, and should not be used for, and then start a PDP proposal to adjust the policy according to it (if needed) - data-center operators and their customers - the "IPv4 loophole" -> customer access links considered infra (and thus, single-address customers with NAT can be numbered from IPv4 PI, but not from IPv6 PI) O. The need for a Registration Policy - Rob Blokzijl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 12:30-14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (old proposals) ---- old policy proposals ---- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size (dead, up for grabs) 2008-07 Ensuring Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources (Philip Smith) 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders (Nigel Titley, CA TF - update what happened since RIPE 59) 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to RIRs (5 RIR design team, represented by Axel Pawlik (?)) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) 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." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) The following subjects have already been raised: - Wording Cleanup regarding 80% rule for PA allocations - Gert Doering - Impact of the 80% rule - Remco van Mook Z. AOB

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs
by Tony Hain 03 May '10

03 May '10

How about getting RIPE-NCC to read it.... ;) The remote feed page for the RIPE60 plenary has an embedded IPv4 address rather than the fqdn. // netConnectionUrl defines where the streams are found netConnectionUrl: 'rtmp://193.0.0.162/live' Putting the IPv6 literal into VLC shows that the streamer is not even listening on the IPv6 address of that machine because it just fails the connect, where VLC crashes when trying to take the stream from the IPv4 literal. > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Mirjam Kuehne > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:30 AM > To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Dear colleagues, > > We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service > region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course > depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be > valuable in a bigger context. > > Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > We would be interested to hear what you think about this idea in > general > and if you have any suggestions on how to modify or improve this. > > Kind Regards, > Mirjam Kühne > RIPE NCC

1 0

Policy proposal 2009-01
by Nigel Titley 29 Apr '10

29 Apr '10

Folks, As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin. 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region. Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about. The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all. I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward. All the best Nigel

23 39

AW: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1137 - 1 msg
by Bubeck Eberhard 22 Apr '10

22 Apr '10

Pop ----- Originalnachricht ----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Gesendet: Tue Apr 20 12:00:03 2010 Betreff: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1137 - 1 msg Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://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-admin(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. 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP) (Filiz Yilmaz) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Filiz Yilmaz" <filiz(a)ripe.net> To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Reply-To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:14:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP) PDP Number: 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 May 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC End of address-policy-wg Digest

1 0

[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 22 Apr '10

22 Apr '10

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:34 PM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > and a very pleasant evening. > > a few questions. > > IPv6 on your radar? > Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs? > > Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line? > > if you think something like this is a good idea, worth > persuing, I'd like to hear from you. > and as Friend Bush reminds, if you think this idea is lunacy - I'd like to hear that as well. --bill

1 0

Draft Agenda for upcoming APWG meeting at RIPE 60
by Gert Doering 20 Apr '10

20 Apr '10

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Prague in the following three time slots: Wednesday, May 5, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 5, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, May 6, 14:00 - 15:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz - overview over concluded proposals 2009-03 [run out fairly] - accepted [withdrawn proposals, if any] - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. New Proposals since RIPE 59 -> Discussion of open policy proposals, Part 1 (new proposals) 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policy (Nick Hilliard) ????-?? Global Policy State in RIPE PDP (Dave Wilson) [work in progress, no formal number assigned yet] ????-?? Wording Cleanup regarding 80% rule for PA allocations (Gert Doering) [to be submitted in the next days] ????-?? Allocations from the last /8 (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron, just presented here, to be discussed on Thursday) [work in progress, formal number to be assigned next week] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Filiz Yilmaz - feedback received on the first set of changes - how to go forward? L. "Authorship of RIPE Policy Documents" - Filiz Yilmaz This presentation seeks to reach community agreement on how to document and acknowledge the role of people that propose changes to RIPE Internet Resource Allocation and Assignment policies. M. Ideas how to tackle any problems that have been experienced by the NCC Registration Services Department. (open discussion, based on the report and comments on Wednesday) - try to come up with consensus on what we think "IPv6 PI" should be used for, and should not be used for, and then start a PDP proposal to adjust the policy according to it (if needed) - data-center operators and their customers - the "IPv4 loophole" -> customer access links considered infra (and thus, single-address customers with NAT can be numbered from IPv4 PI, but not from IPv6 PI) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 12:30-14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- T. Discussion of open policy proposals (old proposals) ---- old policy proposals ---- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size 2008-07 Ensuring Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources (Philip Smith) 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders (Nigel Titley, CA TF - update what happened since RIPE 59) 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to RIRs (5 RIR design team) ---- directly related to IPv4 run-out --- 2008-06 Use of Final /8 (Philip Smith) 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (Alain Bidron) these two proposals will be dropped, and replaced by a new combined proposal: ????-?? Last /8 (new combined proposal from Philip Smith and Alain Bidron) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) 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." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 1

Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
by Axel Pawlik 14 Apr '10

14 Apr '10

On 14/04/2010 09:48, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move > legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else > in the world. (*) Just a clarification... As this is a global policy proposal, all RIR regions would have to be in agreement for it to be implemented. In that case, yes, resources returned to IANA would later be re-allocated, possibly to other regions than they came from. As things stand today, with the ARIN community having agreed on a different text than the other RIRs' communities, this proposal fails as a global policy; which means that it will not be implemented. cheers, Axel > > * Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on > movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When > I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which > placed such laws on their respective books. It was generally > considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have > followed suit. > > --bill > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within >> RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ??? >> >> Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the >> recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) >> sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for >> non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case >> i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.). >> >> >> Regards, >> Carlos >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of >>> consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. >>> >>> All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. >>> >>> All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in >>> it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory >>> return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a >>> different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same >>> policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it >>> is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it >>> in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: >>> >>> 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with >>> the other regions, apart from Arin. >>> >>> 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity >>> with Arin, but with no one else >>> >>> 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't >>> make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... >>> >>> 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to >>> withdraw the proposal in this region. >>> >>> Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any >>> address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It >>> was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become >>> available then it would be used for the greater good of all the >>> registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the >>> space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt >>> that it was worth making a statement about. >>> >>> The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement >>> globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would >>> like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and >>> put the matter to bed once and for all. >>> >>> I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping >>> to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate >>> how they would like to move this forward. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Nigel >>> >>> > >

4 4