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

Agenda suggestions for RIPE56?
by Gert Doering 15 Apr '08

15 Apr '08

Hi APWG folks, we're currently working on a draft agenda for the upcoming RIPE meeting in Berlin, which I'll send in a few days. The "usual" stuff will be there of course (discussion of all open policy proposals, and time generic policy discussions). If there is anything special you want to see on the Agenda, please let me know, so I can put it in. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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 0

proposal about 2007-1
by Frederic 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

hi, i propose to change:This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources by: This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC may be established before the End User receives Internet number resources. today, is not posible to etablish relationship with ripe. now with this modification of the 2007-1 that is possible but not an obligation. bst regards. Frederic CELLA

7 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by frederic＠placenet.org 09 Apr '08

09 Apr '08

> > > address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net wrote on 08/04/2008 16:29:22: > >> Frederic <frederic(a)placenet.org> >> Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net >> >> 08/04/08 16:29 >> >> To >> >> Ian.Meikle(a)nominet.org.uk >> >> cc >> >> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> >> Subject >> >> Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> >> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 16:09 +0100, Ian.Meikle(a)nominet.org.uk a >> écrit : >> > > Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> >> > > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net >> > > >> > > 08/04/08 13:29 >> > > >> > > To >> > > >> > > Frederic <frederic(a)placenet.org>, Shane Kerr > <shane(a)time-travellers.org> >> > > >> > > cc >> > > >> > > Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" >> > > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> >> > > >> > > Subject >> > > >> > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct >> > > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) >> > > >> > > Hi Frederic, >> > > >> > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic(a)placenet.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI >> > holder >> > > > thru Database information. >> > > > >> > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. >> > > >> > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is > that >> > they >> > > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or >> > registrar. >> > > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. >> > > >> > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our >> > registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving > them. >> > For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need >> to > pay >> > a fee per domain name. >> > >> > However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is > time >> > limited, with on option to renew. >> >> >> it is not true for all domain. and the "not for all" is important. >> >> that why we do not support : contract for all RESSOURCE. let choice by >> change MUST by MAY. >> >> > Can you provide a counter example? > counter exemple for ? domain ? .st .nf or .eu.org. all are free. Free because 1$ some time is huge. no contract because everybody is not hijacker and all idea may be possible. bst regards. Frederic > Ian >

6 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Max Tulyev 09 Apr '08

09 Apr '08

Sure, dealing with domains is like IP networks. But unlike domains, PI IP networks is not billed yearly (yet). May be we should return back old charging scheme when PI is billed yearly to LIRs? This will enforce return unused space, make contracts between LIRs and end-users, and so on just *automagically* ;) frederic(a)placenet.org wrote: >> Frederic, >> >> current system is NOT working well. >> >> Just because we can't trace dead companies and dead assignments and >> reuse it. In 1-2 years all unused space will be assigned. >> > > I suppose all (dead-compagny) block has an ripe datatabse record ? > > can use the same way that a drop domain name ? > > >> But if even that policy will be implemented - how we can enforce it? How >> can we revoke that space if need? >> > > I think that domain name way is interesting to implement ? > > before to be a contractual document, is a moral contract. > > bst regards. > Frederic > >> Frederic wrote: >>> We support if: >>> No Fees is required for this contractual relationship. >>> and this contractual relation ship do not exist between and user and one >>> LIR. >>> >>> else >>> we do not support, today system works well. >> >> -- >> WBR, >> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) >> > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

2 1

2008-1
by Frederic 09 Apr '08

09 Apr '08

we support this proposal and want extend a /64 for all identified inetnum holder like an ISP. ABOUT: General: The RIPE NCC understands that the Address Policy WG Chairs would require the full implementation of this proposal only after the outcome of Policy Proposal 2007-01, which generally discusses direct End User assignments. This would be the case even if Policy Proposal 2008-01 concludes first. our change of proposal about 2007-1, help to support 2008-1. bst regards. Frédéric CELLA

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Ian.Meikle＠nominet.org.uk 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

> Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> > Sent by: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > 08/04/08 13:29 > > To > > Frederic <frederic(a)placenet.org>, Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> > > cc > > Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Subject > > Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct > Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC) > > Hi Frederic, > > On 08/04/2008 03:58, "Frederic" <frederic(a)placenet.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder > > thru Database information. > > > > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name. > > This is a fairly good analogy. My understanding of domain names is that they > are normally delegated according to a contract with a registry or registrar. > If the contract ends the delegation is removed. > There is a thriving market in 'dead' domain names. Several of our registrars base their business models around buying them and reviving them. For this to work they need to have a contract with us, and they need to pay a fee per domain name. However, the leverage we have is that the contract on a domain name is time limited, with on option to renew. If they do not renew then we remove the domain name from DNS. There is then a time lag before the domain is released back into the market. In other words, we control service, so we can enforce the contract. The NCC does not have a similar lever. Regards, Ian Regards, Ian

2 2

2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Filiz Yilmaz 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

PDP Number: 2007-01 Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2007-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI assignments can not be sub-assigned. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 5 May 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

11 21

Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC"
by Axel Pawlik 08 Apr '08

08 Apr '08

[ I wanted to send this a little earlier, but was caught up in transit to the ARIN meeting. cheers, Axel ] Dear all, It has come to my attention that the community has pointed out that there is no draft of an actual End User contract included in policy proposal 2007-01. This issue has been raised after the proposal was moved to the Review Phase of the Policy Development Process (PDP) and a draft policy document was published. After extensive discussion, the RIPE NCC Executive Board does not believe that the addition of a draft contract to proposal 2007-01 is necessary. Preferred model The Executive Board anticipates that this proposal will introduce a dual model whereby an End User can chose to have *either* a contract with a "sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR)" or directly with the RIPE NCC. The Executive Board believes that having a “sponsoring LIR” is the preferred model; the RIPE NCC currently has more than 5400 members, from which the sponsoring LIR can be chosen. This model has been outlined in the draft document. Further, the Executive Board maintains that the RIPE NCC should not be involved in any contractual processes or details that occur between an LIR and its customer. Such contracts should be formulated by the "sponsoring" LIR and not by the RIPE NCC. However, the Executive Board would like to point out that any contract between End User and "sponsoring LIR" must be formulated clearly so that the End User understands the consequences,as outlined in the RIPE proposal, of applying for or holding a direct resource assignment. Proposal 2007-01, and existing RIPE policies, already have references to such consequences and outline possible cautions that "supporting LIRs" may want to include in their customers' contracts. The RIPE NCC, however, will always available for consultation about the consequences and cautions mentioned above. Direct contracts with the RIPE NCC The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a "Sponsoring LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. In this case the End User will be required to set up an LIR and become a RIPE NCC member. Charging Scheme If this proposal is accepted, the charging scheme applied by the RIPE NCC to "Sponsoring LIRs" will be addressed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in due course and reviewed by the RIPE NCC membership during RIPE NCC General Meetings. Conclusion Overall, the Executive Board and I understand that the proposal's intention is to facilitate clear and improved contractual relationships with End Users so that the obligations of responsible stewardship of Internet resources can be fulfilled by LIRs and the RIPE NCC. We believe that the details of the actual contracts between End User and "supporting LIR" should be devised by the LIR. It is, of course, the responsibility of the LIRs together with the RIPE NCC to ensure that the details set out in these contracts comply with the guidelines that the RIPE policies have set. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

3 4

New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Alex Le Heux 07 Apr '08

07 Apr '08

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 47104 - 48127 from the IANA in April 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: 2008-03 Discussion Period has ended (Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)
by Roque Gagliano 03 Apr '08

03 Apr '08

Filiz, I guess the option is 1) we will be presenting the proposal at RIPE meeting. Regards, Roque On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-03 > Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space > > Dear all, > > The discussion period for the proposal described in > 2008-03 has ended. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-03.html > > Please note that there we no posts to the mailing list regarding the > proposal. > > Please reply to this email to let us know how you would like to > proceed. > > * Do you want to prepare the documentation that will support this > policy change? We will send you further instructions about this. > > * Do you want to extend the discussion period? Please let us know > what > date you wish to extend it to, and we will tell the RIPE community. > > * Do you want to update the text in your proposal and set a new > discussion period? > > * Do you want to withdraw this proposal? > > Please let us know your decision in the next seven days. > > We look forward to your response. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

2 1