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

New on RIPE Labs: So Long Last /8 and Thanks For All the Allocations
by Mirjam Kuehne 28 Aug '19

28 Aug '19

Dear colleagues, On 17 April 2018, we allocated the last available block of 1,024 addresses in 185/8 - the last /8 we received from IANA back in 2011. This article on RIPE Labs looks at how this address space was allocated and how it is used today: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/so-long-last-8-and-thanks-for-all-the… It's important to keep in mind that while 185/8 is finished, we still have around nine million recovered IPv4 addresses in our available pool. Under current policy and growth rates, we expect these to last a further two years. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

3 2

Staff participation in the IP market
by Ronald F. Guilmette 19 Aug '19

19 Aug '19

Please forgive me if this question is deemed inappropriate for this specific mailing list and working group. This seems to be the most appropriate WG for my question. I hope also that no one will take any offense nor any unstated implication from my question. I intend to put this question also to the communities of each and every one of the five global Regional Internet Registries. Nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am starting this process in the RIPE region. My question is a simple one: Are policies in place, within the RIPE region, which prohibit RIPE NCC staff members from participating in the current open market for IP addresses? I do believe that everyone on this mailing list must be well and truly aware of that fact that the buying, selling, and trading of IPv4 addresses is nowadays a lucrative and growing business. It should also be altogether clear and apparent that RIPE NCC staff could, if permitted to do so, leverage their significant and special ``insider'' knowledge to gain some advantage in this market, relative to other market participants. Thus, I wish to know simply if such participation is or is not currently prohibited or allowed by current applicable staff policy. To reiterate, nothing at all should be inferred from my question. I am most assuredly not making any allegations nor even any vague implications by my question. This general question came up in an unrelated context, and now I just want to know whether or not each of the five regions have policies in place with respect to staff participation in the burgeoning IP address market. Regards, rfg

2 2

2019-05 Review Phase (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)
by Marco Schmidt 08 Aug '19

08 Aug '19

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and finetune assignment criteria. The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the changes made to version v1.0 include: - The maximum assignment size to IXPs remains /22 - Defines that IPv4 ranges smaller than /24 will be added to the IXP pool The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 September 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2019-02 Proposal Accepted (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Jul '19

31 Jul '19

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation". This proposal aimed at creating a waiting list based on an allocation size of /24 once the RIPE NCC’s free IPv4 pool is exhausted. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-725 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-725 We estimate that this proposal will take around one to two months to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

2 2

2019-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Jul '19

26 Jul '19

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal aims at creating a waiting list based on an allocation size of /24 once the RIPE NCC’s free IPv4 pool is exhausted. The WG co-chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 24 July 2019 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs for final consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 July 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Jul '19

24 Jul '19

Hi all, I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred. I don't really recall if this was discussed during the relevant proposal discussion, and it will be great if someone can summarize it (I guess the author or chairs, or even the staff). I think we should consider amend that, unless the reasons it was not done at that time, persist today, or even if those reasons persist, may be the community has a different view. I think the text should be something such as: IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources: - In the case of intra-RIR transfers. - In the case of inter-RIR, when incoming to RIPE service region. I think this is a benefit for the global community, because with that, we bring into the RIR system more and more legacy IPv4 resources, which increase the transparency and community control. In a presentation from ARIN for the 2016-2018 period it has been mention: - Overall space managed by ARIN decreased by ~14 million IPv4 addresses, due to Inter-RIR transfers - Overall ARIN issued space increased by ~30 million IPv4 addresses, due primarily to conversion of legacy space via in-region transfers Opinions? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

19 70

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 15 Jul '19

15 Jul '19

Hi Jim, El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" <jim(a)rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet, and it is surprising to me that we are the only out of 5 RIRs, that has not done this already. Embrace diversity! I'm fine with diversity, or course! "Because the other RIRs do it" isn't by itself a strong enough justification for the RIPE region to copy them. My point here is that I disagree with not turning non-legacy into legacy. I think this is bad for the community. So as part of the diversity, my point of view is "divergent" with the actual policy, but is the same as the other 4 RIRs. I'm sure in RIPE we have people in one side, the other side, and the middle one. In this particular case, I am not convinced the proposal has any merit. Forcing legacy space to be subject to RIR policy on transfer is just wrong. The holders got that space before the RIRs existed. Which means it's grossly unfair and unreasonable to retroactively make that space subject to RIR policy, even when that space gets transferred. If the legacy holder chooses to do that, fine. However they cannot and must not be compelled to do so. Here is where we disagree. I'm looking for what is best of the overall community, not the best of the legacy owners. I'm very honest here. It was just wrong we got legacy allocations, but it was no other way as the RIRs didn't existed. I think we can try to correct as much as possible past mistakes. Nobody is forcing the existing holders to do the transfers, they can just keep their resources and avoid that. I think is fair that destination holders are in-the-systems mandatorily. Such a policy may also be counter-productive since it (a) could discourage legacy holders from releasing unused space; (b) make such space unattractive to recipients because it would be subject to RIR policies, RIR fees might be payable, etc. (c) introduce uncertainty in the transfer market because donors and recipients get concerned that future transfers of legacy space could get singled out for yet more Bad Ideas. I think it has been demonstrated by the stats of the last 2 years, that (a) is not the reality. (b) this is a community decision, and my personal view is that it should be that way. (c) this will not be retroactive: transfers already done with the exiting policy will not turn into non-legacy (unless they get transferred again). Let's assume your hypothetical proposal became policy Jordi. Would it apply to transfers of legacy space that took place before this policy came into effect? If no, why not? If yes, it would imply all RIR policies have to be retroactively be imposed on legacy holders. I just responded to this (c) above. I'm not considering retroactivity. They will if they become transferred again. I think it's time to introduce a new policy proposal which brings about a moratorium on v4 address policy proposals. > I think this is a benefit for the global community, because ... increase the transparency and community control. Your comment about increased control is deeply troubling. Are you trying to turn the RIR system into the IP address police or the ITU? Do you want to bring about an investigation by the competition authorities? Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it! You know may answer already: not at all. I meant control by *this* community, by our policy system. Sorry if I was not clear. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Home Pest Control Services
by John Thomas 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

Exterminator bug services are the best home pest control services without any hassle. You can book our expert pest control with just a few clicks and be saved from all pest problems and trouble. We have a team of professional pest exterminators are well trained, government certified, and have years of experience in pest treatment. We provide you with 100% effective Pest Control Solutions that get rid of household pests like red ants, black ants, carpenter ants, flying ants, and cockroaches. Our expert pest exterminators can save you from diseases caused by pests and other severe damages by providing a completely safe and hassle-free Pest treatment. Pest exterminators are well trained and selected after strict scrutiny. Professional exterminators have thorough knowledge about pests and are entirely reliable and trustworthy. Their pest control services are detailed, and they also provide a free site inspection. They have become the most popular services of pest control for their customer friendly approach and prompt response. https://exterminatorbugservices.com/ Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)
by Marco Schmidt 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims at creating a waiting list based on an allocation size of /24 once the RIPE NCC’s free IPv4 pool is exhausted. The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - New proposal title - Focus on waiting list requirements - Adjusting the moment of policy activation The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 8

Prefix size
by Sander Steffann 23 May '19

23 May '19

Hi, Yesterday in the APWG session I promised to go to the routing WG and notify them of the possibility of IPv4 prefix lengths growing longer than /24 in the future. I think Geoff Huston just already made an excellent presentation that included that point, so thank you Geoff! Cheers, Sander

1 0