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

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC Membership Statistics Q3 2015
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, We look at the RIPE NCC in terms of growth, geographic distribution and IPv6 deployment. We find that recent RIPE policy changes have had an impact on membership statistics and development trends. Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ripe-ncc-membership-statistics-q3-2015 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Hello I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. -- Shahin Gharghi

17 47

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by Pietro Asproni 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear All,, proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks Regards, Pietro Asproni PA7-RIPE

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran
by Saeed Khademi 22 Oct '15

22 Oct '15

Hello everybody, I read all messages in this regard, and I think conversation is going off the road. One individual, or one LIR may talk about their own opinion regarding the proposal. Please do not extent the talk to all LIRs from Iran or any other region. and I don't think that it is wise to stamp a technical proposal with political issues. Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:43 PM To: Shahin Gharghi Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi <shahin(a)gharghi.ir> wrote: >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs. >> Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > > RIPE NCC can ease the process.I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus > on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I > doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how > this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which > does that. > People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. > Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of > community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are > talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user > of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to > look at them. Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.

3 3

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why > Iran companies can't announce IPv6. > > You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open, brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions. Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the > largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region. > People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this case to ease transfers) So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more. > I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach > consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions > problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas > about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal > which does that. > > I'll do my best to submit a proposal. > Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops > address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the > community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current > policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as > everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs > in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. > > I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts, I mean even this /22's can help them. I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > > > > > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. > > What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. > > > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > RIPE NCC can ease the process. People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them. -- Shahin Gharghi

4 3

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > > > If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. > It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from > the market at prices which will be obviously higher. > And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them? > > Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new > entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate > according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 > resources. > This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea about how bad the situation is in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool > will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and > everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. > > I agree with you but at least makes it faster. -- Shahin Gharghi

3 2

2015-05
by Jim Reid 20 Oct '15

20 Oct '15

This policy proposal is a Very Bad Idea. I oppose it. The arguments presented in support of this proposal make no sense. IMO 2015-05 is harmful and not in the best short- or long-term interests of the RIPE community. There may be a case for making an LIR's final IPv4 allocation larger than a /22. However that position is not yet backed up by any supporting data and would need to go in another policy proposal anyway. I hope the WG kills 2015-05.

3 2

2014-03 "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments" take #4
by Job Snijders 15 Oct '15

15 Oct '15

Dear APWG, Following the outcome of the vote on the new charging scheme, the inevitable depletion of 16-bit ASNs, opposition to arbitrary limits suck as '1000', but most importantly the incessant need to obtain ASNs when one needs them, we have a new simpler version of the proposal ready for your consideration and review: """ A new AS Number is only assigned when the End User has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number. RIPE NCC will record, but not evaluate this need. The Autonomous System's routing policy should be defined with RPSL in the RIPE RIPE Database. The RIPE NCC will assign the AS Number directly to the End User upon a request that is properly submitted to the RIPE NCC either directly or through a sponsoring LIR. AS Number assignments are subject to the policies described in the RIPE Document, "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region". """ diff: https://github.com/ytti/ripe/commit/5c0a8587c53c42e5b6630716ff073cfd117ef1b9 full: https://github.com/ytti/ripe/blob/master/ripe-525.remove_multihome.txt I've noted as an argument opposing this proposal: "An adversary could try to deplete the pool of available ASNs." If someone has a workable suggestion how to resolve that in policy, I am all ears, but I wouldn't mind a pragmatic approach where we just trust our community and deal with issues if and when they arise. Kind regards, Job

8 15

RIPE 70 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 12 Oct '15

12 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 70 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0