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

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by David - ProfesionalHosting 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.

8 9

2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '15

17 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 November 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

46 81

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Jim Reid)
by NOC ATOMOHOST 16 Nov '15

16 Nov '15

> Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4 allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair and unwise. Dear Jim, A lot of LIR's in the number of regions cannot allow themselves "serious approach to using IPv6" because of outdated infrustructure and lack of resources . We offer (see my previous mail) to let them grow and expand and let them opportunity to accumulate resources for update and renew their infrustructures. We expect that subsequently this can help such LIRs to deploy IPv6. Also worth mentioning that our adjustment restricts the possibilities to abuse policy changes by major LIRs who are already have the opportunity to deploy IPv6. -- Best regards, Igor Strelyaniy Network Operation Manager ATOMOHOST LLC email: noc(a)atomohost.com website: atomohost.com

2 2

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by NOC ATOMOHOST 16 Nov '15

16 Nov '15

Hello, Me and my colleagues think that community should accept this proposal with an adjustment: ** 3. An equivalent of a /22 allocation can be requested every 18 months from the moment of the last allocation if the following conditions are met: 1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry. 2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation Adjustment: 3. The LIR is not allocated more than equivalent of a /19 ** Adjustment reasoning: The last changes in IP Transfer policy (18 month transfer delay) positively influenced the fight against membership abuse. But we want to draw your attention to the fact that for now new members have virtually no space for further growth and development and are unable to compete with the old ones who were allocated much larger address space a long ago. The barrier and the prospect of a /19 prevents the old large members to abuse the changes and gives the new ones an opportunity to plan their growth for 12 years (on condition of 18 moth allocation delay), excluding transfers (in case if it is difficult to implement the transfer in a members service region). We belive that this policy changes with our adjustment will attract a new real and competitive members to community. -- Best regards, Igor Strelyaniy Network Operation Manager ATOMOHOST LLC email: noc(a)atomohost.com website: atomohost.com

1 0

2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Nov '15

15 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposers decided to withdraw the proposal due to the inability to find an acceptable solution which satisfied all parties. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

20 29

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - AS Numbers can now be assigned for any need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number - The RIPE NCC's need evaluation has been removed - A limit of 1,000 AS Numbers per organisation has been added - There is now a requirement that 16-bit AS Numbers be multihomed after nine months - The requirement that the routing policy must be new and unique has been removed - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 And the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 January 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

16 41

RIPE 71 AP-WG Agenda v1
by Gert Doering 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Bucharest in the following time slots: Wednesday, Nov 18, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, Nov 18, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE70 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation 2015-03 Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size - brief overview over new proposals (if any) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders - ...?) 2015-04 RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (Erik Bais) 2015-05 Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria (Radu-Adrian Feurdean, Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back H. Romania's jump to 1st place as exporter of IPs (Ciprian Nica) [30 min] presentation and discussion D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Ingrid Wijte (NCC RS) (+ discussion with the group) 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." Z. AOB -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
by Dominik Nowacki 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

Hello, I think that if we are changing the policy in regards to allocations from the Last /8 we should make sure this is not abused. There are many LIRs setup solely for the purpose of getting an allocation from the last /8 to rent this space out. As this space is offered for a very low fee it is often abused and hence artificially increasing the IPv4 depletion. This should not be the case. I think the policy should allow for the subsequent allocations from the last /8, but only if the space is not only not transferred out of the LIR account in the period of 18 months AND the LIR was not renting the space from the last /8 to another entities within the last 18 months period (solely, not as part of another service). What do you think ? Kind Regards, Dominik Clouvider Limited

4 5

address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 31 Oct '15

31 Oct '15

Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

12 15

R: address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

>It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago. > >Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business. > >Regards, > >--ck Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it. Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Da: Alessio Genova [mailto:alessiogenova1@gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 29 ottobre 2015 14:02 A: 'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net' Oggetto: address-policy-wg Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

4 3