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

[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 B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz - overview over concluded proposals 2009-03 [run out fairly] - accepted [withdrawn proposals, if any] - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...)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

2008-06 (Use of final /8) and 2009-04 (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) Policy Proposals Withdrawn
by Ingrid Wijte 13 Apr '10

13 Apr '10

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 PDP Number: 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment Dear Colleagues These proposals have been withdrawn. They are now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html The authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see proposal 2010-02). Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
by Gert Doering 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Hi APWG, one of the issues pointed out by Alex le Heugh from the RIPE NCC RS department at the last RIPE meeting was the "80% rule" for additional IPv4 allocations, which has multiple, contradictory definitions in the current address policy documents. See here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/leheux-rough-edges-… on page 17-21 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484.html, section 5.3 and 5.4 The different sections of the policy text both describe the rule slightly differently. This makes it unclear how the 80% rule should be applied. Let me explain by example: - a LIR has a /16, which is at 95% utilization, and a /19 that is at 40% utilization. Over all their address space, the utilization would be 88%. - interpretation 1: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, every *single* of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR will not get a new allocation, because the /19 is only at 40%" - interpretation 2: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, the grand total of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR *will* get another allocation, because they have used 88%". Personally, I think that the interpretation according to 5.3 of the IPv4 address policy document ("interpretation 2") is the intention of the policy. 5.4 (sub-allocations) was added later, and has language about the 80% criteria that is misleading - this section is only concerned about sub-allocations, and "the 80% sentence" was put in there to emphasize the existing rule, not to change it (I know that from the proposer of this policy change...). Now, "just changing the text according to what the WG chair thinks" would not be the right thing - so what I think is the way forward now is to get feedback from *you*, and if there is clear guidance from the working group on resolving this ambiguity, we run a formal proposal to change the wording of the document in one way or the other. (Please don't get into sidetrack discussions on whether "80%" or "IPv4" is useful, but focus on this specific question.) thanks, and regards, Gert Doering, APWG Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 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

6 5

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Jim Reid wrote: > I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit > with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If > there were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the > unused space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous > allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It > might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space > that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on > later. Jim, I fully understand this concern. An overly large number of assignments might fragment the address space and lead to people trying take advantage of an opportunity to resell addresses. Something like Cybersquatting that is practiced with domain names. However I think that the RIPE community is capable of stopping that. That would require formal and very serious requirements for requesting vanity addresses for certain projects that will benefit the people. Honestly, I'm not even sure that there will be so many people interested in getting such ip-addresses if the process is a formal and not a simple one. Besides, we would very much like for our request to be reviewed by the committee from RIPE NCC in a speacial manner. Because we're requesting these addresses not for resale or direct monetary benefit and think that if we're given them all parties are going to win. We're trying to make the internet a safer place for millions of people and improve the present technical infrastructure at the same time by creating a distributed network of available and effective DNS-servers in Russia and Europe. I can't speak for Europe but in Russia and its neighboring countries the existing DNS-structure has a lot of problems such as slow channels and outdated equipment, lack of DNSSEC support and protection from attacks. All this we want to change. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak

3 2

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 06 Apr '10

06 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address > space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I > thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right? > The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular > resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any > sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much > freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think > the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the > rare case where someone asks for these. As far as we're concerned we're going to follow all the necessary requirements and formalities needed for assignment of a block of IP-addreesses. We're ready to apply throught a standard procedure from the name of our company, or through one of the present LIRs. We could even get a status of a LIR for our company if needed and pay the initial fee and yearly fees. We hope that an assignment of the minimal IP block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24 (or 2.2.2.0/21) will not cause any routing problems, because the availability of this address from any part of the world will be achieved throught BGP Anycast. > Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that > we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this > process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared > to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no > complaints.... We're trying to figure out if there are any reasons that make an assignment of the requested range technically challenged, but apparently there are any restrictions. According to this experiment of APNIC, described in the RIPE blog: http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18, engineers from the APNIC or RIPE NCC have a certain freemdom in experimenting with undistributed addresses like 1.1.1.1 (2.2.2.2) ? That means that theoretically it is possible to manually enter data in the RIPE database and manually distribute address 2.2.2.2 for it to find a really beneficial application for the internet community, and not just go away to another company that sets up something like DSL-connection pool, because for them vanity addresses are totally irrelevant. I'd like to point it out one more time that we're talking about a very useful and free DNS service for the end-users, that will allow millions of people from Russia and Europe to speed up DNS-requests and filter out untrustful websites like with malware and phishing content... Besides, we hope to provide services for parents preventing children from accessing forbidden websites. This alone will benefit millions of internet users too. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

6 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address > space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I > thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right? > The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular > resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any > sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much > freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think > the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the > rare case where someone asks for these. As far as we're concerned we're going to follow all the necessary requirements and formalities needed for assignment of a block of IP-addreesses. We're ready to apply throught a standard procedure from the name of our company, or through one of the present LIRs. We could even get a status of a LIR for our company if needed and pay the initial fee and yearly fees. We hope that an assignment of the minimal IP block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24 (or 2.2.2.0/21) will not cause any routing problems, because the availability of this address from any part of the world will be achieved throught BGP Anycast. > Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that > we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this > process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared > to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no > complaints.... > In the end I suppose we can just let the addresses fall wherever and let > "the market" sort it out, now that there is a "trading" policy. While > the desire for vanity addresses might accelerate the process of IP > addresses becoming property, that is probably inevitable, so it won't > change the big picture too much. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

1 0

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > As for actually getting the RIPE NCC to issue a resource based on a > request... I think there are two ways to go about this. One is making it > a POLICY matter, and going through the PDP and updating the relevant > documents. The other is solving it PROCEDURALLY, which basically means > convincing the RIPE NCC to accept special requests and handle them when > possible. Very interesting idea. If there is a way to solve our issue PROCEDURALLY, that means there's no need to alter the present POLICY. > In summary: > * I support allowing people to request specific unused resources > * I hope that can be done without a policy change In fact we originally hoped to solve our issue in this manner, when we addressed RIPE directly. Do you know of any similar requests in the past? How were they solved? Who can we refer to in RIPE NCC with this request? -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

1 0

2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '10

02 Apr '10

Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492) Summary of Proposal: This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines. The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC. Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone. Policy Text: a. Old text Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492. b. New policy text Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492: -- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken. All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1! The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. -- a. Arguments supporting the proposal Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all. This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above). Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.

13 14