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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the MinimumAllocation Size for IPv4)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

Hello -- I am neither for nor against the policy. I do have some statistics from our business that may be relevant to the decision. Between May of 2012 when we saw the first small transaction, and today, we have received exactly 50 requests for transfers of LESS than a /22 within the RIPE region. One of these was for only 1 IP, but the most common request would be for a /24. My opinion is that this shows there is some demand for an allocation size smaller than a /22. The requests came from all over Europe, but the countries most represented would be Poland, the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, and the Ukraine, for whatever reason. Many countries are represented at least once. Best Regards, Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by poty＠iiat.ru 28 Mar '14

28 Mar '14

Hello, There would be always the difference between PI distribution and PA. As pointed by Janos - there is always contractual relationship between a PI user and a LIR or RIR, who covers some "side" mechanic. In case of PA it is more like selling - after an address block transfer the only responsible party is the new "owner". Regards, Vladislav >> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum >> sub-allocation size (<[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be >> reverse delegated>) is quite simply false, given RFC 2317 > > Well, technically speaking this is obviously feasible. However, as I > pointed it out on the DSN WG mailing list, in case of transfers, where > the "buyer" normally does not wish to have any further business > relationship with the "seller" once the transfer is completed, this > solution may be unattractive. The fact that the "seller" has to > provide appropriate DNS services (i.e. in accordance with > BCP20/RFC2317) to the "buyer" for an _indefinite_ period of time, is > probably one more deterrent to transferring such a small amount of > addresses. I think it would be reasonable to expect that if 2014-01 passes, the NCC will respond by allowing direct classless delegation of PA blocks, just like is already done for PI. If so, what you're describing here shouldn't be a problem. Tore

1 0

A question
by Nigel Titley 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: The company I work for is about to split off one of its country operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. Nigel

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 31, Issue 15
by Lu Heng 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Hi Nigel: My suggestion was keep block in one piece and lease the block to the local companies(if legal requires). because put it back in one piece later on might be a problem and if there is no real transaction involved, less specific block are always better than smaller block for routing reasons. my two cents. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:52 AM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. A question (Nigel Titley) > 2. Re: Input request for the PI Transfer policy (Elvis Velea) > 3. Re: A question (Elvis Daniel Velea) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:25:24 +0000 > From: Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] A question > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331BC04.1020401(a)titley.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: > > The company I work for is about to split off one of its country > operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from > various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a > PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid > having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is > that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to > check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. > > Nigel > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:35:27 +0200 > From: Elvis Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer > policy > To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331BE5F.8020108(a)velea.eu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Gert, > > > On 25/03/14 15:26, Gert Doering wrote: > > [...] >> There might be other reasons as well.. It's just a feeling that limiting >> at /24 is the right thing to do. On the other hand, while writing this >> e-mail I've been having second thoughts on each of the paragraphs and >> reasons :-) >> It's good to have the arguments out, so we can think through them - thanks! > I tried to play the devil's advocate role this time. As said, even when > writing all my con's I realized these aren't too strong. > > As you already know, I'm in favor of not adding any limitations in > policy. I was just trying to voice all the possible con's. > >> >> Gert Doering >> -- no hats > cheers, > elvis > -- blue hat to protect against the sun :-) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:21 +0200 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)v4escrow.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] A question > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <5331D065.5040402(a)v4escrow.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi Nigel, > > As far as I understand from the policy, you can transfer a block that > contains customer assignments. The size of the block that you would > transfer can not be (currently) smaller than a /22. > > So, I would say that you have two options: > - first - where you use the transfer policy and transfer parts of an > allocation to an other LIR (even if it's yours, in a different country). > In this case, the IPs transferred can not be again transferred for two > years to an other LIR. > - second - where you sell to a separate company (parts of) your > infrastructure (and maybe associated customers) and then you would use > the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure. In this case, the transfer > policy would not be used and the IPs transferred to the new company > could then be again transferred using the transfer policy. > > cheers, > elvis > > On 25/03/14 19:25, Nigel Titley wrote: >> Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: >> >> The company I work for is about to split off one of its country >> operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from >> various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a >> PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid >> having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is >> that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to >> check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. >> >> Nigel >> >> > > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. > >

1 0

Input request for the PI Transfer policy
by Erik Bais 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

Hi, As you might know, we are currently working on a policy proposal to allow the transfer of PI space. One of the topics that I would like some input (prior to sending out the proposal itself) it the following: In the current draft, Ive phrased one of the rules for the PI transfer as follows: - Assignments smaller than the minimal allocation size, cant be split into smaller assignments, but can be re-assigned as a complete assignment. My reasoning is that it would disallow cutting up small assignments into even smaller assignments. So in the current situation a /23 PI assignment is smaller than the minimal allocation size, however assigned in the past by the RIPE NCC. With the above stated rule in the proposal, it would not be allowed to split up a PI assignment into 2 PI assignments of a /24 .. or 4 PI assignments of a /25, but it would be allowed to do a complete re-assignments as a /23. With the current new proposal 2014-1 put forward today, the question that we discussed last week (myself, Marco and Andrea ) is that if we would put this forward, that this might need to be re-phrased. The question that I have is, would the community prefer a transfer policy proposal for PI with or without the above stated rule or limitation in freedom in transfers of PI. The goal of the PI transfer policy proposal is to have it similar as the current Transfer policy for PA space. Lets hear it. Regards Erik Bais

10 19

2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 April 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Converting PI assignments to PA allocations for LIRs
by Andrea Cima 24 Mar '14

24 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 66, we informed the Address Policy Working Group that an increasing number of members were asking to change the status of their inetnum objects from “ASSIGNED PI” to “ALLOCATED PA”. After RIPE 66, the discussion continued on this mailing list. Here, a lot of support was expressed for allowing LIRs to change the status of their resources, provided they are correctly registered with the RIPE NCC to the same legal entity that is registered as an LIR. Based on this input, we have now published the procedure to allow assignments to be converted: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Changing the Status of PI Address Space
by Elvis Daniel Velea 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

Hi everyone, I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens. The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR has been stopped and I would like to restart it. My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs. By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly recorded in the registry/RIPE Database. By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented. Therefore, I'm curious: - should we restart the discussion? - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min /22) - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement? Kind regards, Elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

7 9

Post Ident / Post Brief
by Nick Hilliard 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

As there are legal prohibitions in place which prevent german nationals (and possibly other countries) from photocopying their passports, would it be possible for the RIPE NCC to give an opinion on whether Post Ident would be acceptable as an alternative to photocopying passports / driving licenses / etc for PI address applications? Post Ident is considered to be suitable identity certification from the point of view of the german money laundering act. Nick

24 43

IPv6 PA/PI - restarting discussion after failed 2013-06 proposal
by Elvis Daniel Velea 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

Hi everyone, 2013-06 has failed to become policy and we all understand that it presented such big changes that it became too complex. I would like to restart that discussion and see what are the problems/failures of the IPv6 policies (both PI and PA) and come up with a proposal to fix these problems. I'd like to start with the first 4 problems that I have noticed: #1. In IPv4 a PI user can connect a customer to it's network or allow a customer to use a dedicated server using one IP address. This limitation had been extended to up to a /29 (in case redundant connections were offered - ie:VRRP) but most of the cases I have encountered were using either a /32 or a /30. Currently, the IPv6 policy states that the minimum a customer should use is a /64. And because the minimum per customer is a /64, when someone would actually use IPv6 PI for a customer, it would make an assignment of a subnet and violate the policy. I've heard of people using /128s for the servers of their customers and sharing the same vlan amongst multiple customers in the same /64. Others are just requesting a/48 PI and expect never to come back for more (therefore, could not care less about policies). Others just know that the RIPE NCC has no way to see if they sub-assign parts of the /48 PI, so they just request a /48 PI, promise never to sub-assign and later on, forget about the promise. Therefore, I propose that the first change we make to the IPv6 PI policy is that where a /64 could be used per customer (regardless of the service offered to that customer) only if it is registered properly in the RIPE Database. The change would allow PI users to sub-assign in IPv6, but only small (?) amounts of space and only if they actually register the assignment. #2. Second problem I've noticed is the fact that LIRs can receive /32s (and up to /29s) only by asking. On the other hand, if you do not want to become a RIPE NCC member or just can not, you are forced to use IPv6 - a /48. Additionally, this IPv6 PI can only be used for your own infrastructure and not to provide any service (other than SaaS) to your customers without violating the policy (see problem statement #1). One could request more than a /48 but it would need to demonstrate that it has two or more sites that have different routing policies or demonstrate that it has a need for more than 65K subnets. I would like to introduce the IPv6 PI ALLOCATION. This time, the PI allocation could be made to the PI user and the user could actually make assignments from it. The PI allocation would be just as large as the PA Allocation and the price for it would be no less than 50% of the membership fee (Off course, the fees can only be voted upon at the GM and the example is just purely theoretical). This would introduce that 'additional registry' which we never knew how to name during the discussions of 2013-06 and would allow PI users to request/receive a /29 from which they could make assignments. Everyone will say that /32 or /29 will become the new /48. Well, that may be true, on the other hand, it may be the price that could keep the number of large PI Allocations low. Additionally, we could add an arbitrary limit. For example, say that you can request an IPv6 PI Allocation only if you already have x hundred customers that will receive an assignment from you immediately. #3. Minimum assignment size The policy says that the minimum assignment size is a /64. However, the RIPE Database does not enforce this rule and I have seen /128s registered. for example: inet6num: 2001:b70:f000::/112 inet6num: 2001:820:0:1:1::1000/116 inet6num: 2a01:2f0f:ffff:ffff:100:1000::1/128 There are over 700 inet6num objects registered which are below a /64. If we take the policy literally, all these assignments currently violate the policy. Therefore, I think we should either change/remove the minimum assignment size or have the RIPE Database block the creation of any IPv6 assignment smaller than a /64. #4. fix utilisation and hd-ratio vs assignment size While the HD-ratio is being calculated in terms of /56s, the policy says (at point 5.4.1.) that the minimum assignment that can be made is a /64. Furthermore, as you can see above, /128s can be registered in the RIPE Database as well. If we will continue allowing the registration of less than /56 assignments, it will be difficult to almost impossible to the IPRAs to actually calculate what is the HD-ratio of an IPv6 allocation. While now it is too early to see additional IPv6 allocation requests, if we keep doing things as we've been doing for the past years, we will end up in a few years with a huge mess in the registry and the impossibility to calculate the HD-ratio without applying random procedures. A very simple and quick fix would be to say that if any prefix is registered, the whole /56 that includes the prefix is in use. But then, we may see people registering/using /128s from different /56s just to reach the HD-ratio for an additional allocation. Would that still be considered an efficient usage? An other option would be to change the HD-ratio calculation to the actual number of IP addresses used and consider all the IP addresses from an assignment used if correctly registered in the RIPE Database. Once we have worked out whether these 4 issues are indeed flaws in the policy or not and whether we want them fixed or not, I would like to hear your opinion in what else should be modified in the IPv6 policies. I will then collect all the feedback, probably present it at the next RIPE Meeting, and start to discuss an other approach/policy proposal to achieve what 2013-06 failed to achieve. cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

1 0