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

Last Call - 2023-01 - Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26
by Leo Vegoda 31 Jul '23

31 Jul '23

Dear Working Group, The issue raised during the Review Phase was resolved. We will move the proposal to Last Call. If you missed the previous discussion and have identified an issue that has not already been resolved, please raise it. Traditionally, Last Call is four weeks. But opening a Last Call on the last day of July and closing it before the end of August might mean that some people miss this announcement. For this reason, we will hold Last Call open until the end of Friday, 8 September. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

2023-02 Proposal Accepted (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
by Angela Dall'Ara 18 Jul '23

18 Jul '23

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2023-02"Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments". This policy proposal aimed to setthe defaultassignment size for IPv4 temporary assignments to a /24and allow routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-801> The new RIPE Document is called ripe-801and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-801 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-801> We estimate that this proposal will take less than two weeksto fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thanks to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Consensus - 2023-02 - Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments
by Leo Vegoda 18 Jul '23

18 Jul '23

Dear Working Group, No objections were raised during the Last Call phase. The community has achieved a consensus. The RIPE NCC can proceed with implementation. Our thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

2 1

2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
by Karen Hung 12 Jul '23

12 Jul '23

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" is now in Concluding Phase. This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size to a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by the End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. The WG co-chairs have 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 13 July 2023 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/2023-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 13 July 2023. Kind regards, Karen Hung On behalf of Policy Officer RIPE NCC

9 8

2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
by Angela Dall'Ara 12 Jul '23

12 Jul '23

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2023-01, " Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26", is now in the Review Phase. This proposal modifies the default size of IPv4 assignments for IXPs from a /24 to /26 and clarifies the return of the assignments previously issued for their IXP peering LAN. The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this proposal to support the community’s discussion. You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01_ _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01#impact-analysi… And the draft documents at: _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01/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 to send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 July2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

9 13

Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management
by Marco Schmidt 22 Jun '23

22 Jun '23

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 86, we shared some observations regarding Autonomous System Number (ASN) requests and usage [1]. We see an increasing number of ASN requests coming from both inside and outside of our service region. This seems to be driven primarily by the low cost and ease of receiving an ASN from the RIPE NCC. The downside is that we also see a significant decrease in responsible resource management by these resource holders. A large number of ASNs are never used or become abandoned after a short period. Some data: in the last two years, we have provided 4,186 ASNs (between March 2021 and February 2023). Of this amount, we can see that 1,478 ASNs (more than 35%) do not appear to be in use, as they are not visible in the routing system. Looking at total numbers, we have issued almost 38,000 ASNs, of which more than 8,000 (~20%) are not visible. This growing trend not only creates avoidable work for Registration Services and added costs for the membership, we believe it also undermines the goal of responsible management of Internet number resources within our service region. As the membership voted against an annual service fee for ASNs at the recent RIPE NCC General Meeting, I would like to ask the working group for guidance on how resource holders can be motivated to manage their ASNs responsibly and how the RIPE NCC can provide support for this. We also plan to intensify our ongoing project to clean up unused Autonomous System (AS) Numbers [2]. Almost 2,000 unused ASNs have been recovered as part of this work so far. Do you support our approach here? And are there other ways we could improve the situation? Perhaps you could add clarification on requesting and returning ASNs in the relevant RIPE policy, or maybe we could give a stronger mandate and responsibility to the sponsoring LIRs. If you have an ASN registered to you that you don’t need anymore, you can always contact us through the LIR Portal or via your sponsoring LIR and we will arrange for the return of this resource. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC [1] https://ripe86.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/82-RIPE86-Feeback-… [2] https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/as-numbers/as-number-clean-up

12 21

Re: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management
by Arturo Servin 22 Jun '23

22 Jun '23

I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are multihomed. So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness) Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs. Regards as On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:27 PM Arturo Servin <arturolev(a)google.com> wrote: > > I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are > multihomed. > > So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet > (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness) > > Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time > trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs. > > Regards > as > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Mike, >> >> Are these setups still multihome? >> >> Regardsm >> >> Arash Naderpour >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM Mike Bromwich < >> mike.bromwich(a)stacuity.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> One other aspect to consider - there are situations where public ASNs >>> (and addresses) are required - but not directly connected to the Internet. >>> Therefore, they do not appear in the Internet routing tables but are >>> legitimately used elsewhere. >>> >>> For example, in our field (mobile cellular networks) mobile operators >>> are connected using the IPX network as managed by the GSMA. This is >>> distinct from the Internet but public ASNs and addresses are required. >>> >>> The relevant guidelines from the GSMA: >>> https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/IR.40-v8.0.pdf >>> >>> 'The GSMA worked closely with the all the RIR communities (RIPE NCC, >>> ARIN and APNIC) >>> to develop and produce the early versions of this document. This was >>> essential to ensure >>> that the proposed guidelines to the Service Providers associated with >>> requesting and >>> implementing Public addresses are aligned with the existing policies and >>> procedures of the >>> RIR community.' >>> >>> 'New Public address space assignment must be requested by Service >>> Providers and IPX >>> Providers from the appropriate LIR/NIR/DR using existing procedures >>> supported by its >>> respective serving RIR. >>> >>> This document can be used as part of the request submitted by the >>> Service Provider as a >>> source of reference to help explain the requirement for Public address >>> space.' >>> >>> Perhaps there are other such networks which work in the same way? >>> Perhaps there should be a mechanism to record or report that resources are >>> in use elsewhere and so should not be recovered? >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf >>> Of Marco Schmidt >>> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM >>> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible >>> ASN Resource Management >>> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> At RIPE 86, we shared some observations regarding Autonomous System >>> Number (ASN) requests and usage [1]. >>> >>> We see an increasing number of ASN requests coming from both inside and >>> outside of our service region. This seems to be driven primarily by the low >>> cost and ease of receiving an ASN from the RIPE NCC. The downside is that >>> we also see a significant decrease in responsible resource management by >>> these resource holders. A large number of ASNs are never used or become >>> abandoned after a short period. >>> >>> Some data: in the last two years, we have provided 4,186 ASNs (between >>> March 2021 and February 2023). Of this amount, we can see that 1,478 ASNs >>> (more than 35%) do not appear to be in use, as they are not visible in the >>> routing system. >>> >>> Looking at total numbers, we have issued almost 38,000 ASNs, of which >>> more than 8,000 (~20%) are not visible. >>> >>> This growing trend not only creates avoidable work for Registration >>> Services and added costs for the membership, we believe it also undermines >>> the goal of responsible management of Internet number resources within our >>> service region. >>> >>> As the membership voted against an annual service fee for ASNs at the >>> recent RIPE NCC General Meeting, I would like to ask the working group for >>> guidance on how resource holders can be motivated to manage their ASNs >>> responsibly and how the RIPE NCC can provide support for this. >>> >>> We also plan to intensify our ongoing project to clean up unused >>> Autonomous System (AS) Numbers [2]. Almost 2,000 unused ASNs have been >>> recovered as part of this work so far. Do you support our approach here? >>> And are there other ways we could improve the situation? Perhaps you >>> could add clarification on requesting and returning ASNs in the relevant >>> RIPE policy, or maybe we could give a stronger mandate and responsibility >>> to the sponsoring LIRs. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you have an ASN registered to you that you don’t need anymore, you >>> can always contact us through the LIR Portal or via your sponsoring LIR and >>> we will arrange for the return of this resource. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Marco Schmidt >>> Manager Registration Services >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://ripe86.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/82-RIPE86-Feeback-… >>> >>> [2] >>> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/as-numbers/as-number-clean-up >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or >>> change your subscription options, please visit: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >>> -- >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or >>> change your subscription options, please visit: >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >>> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change >> your subscription options, please visit: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >> >

2 1

Draft Address Policy WG Minutes from RIPE 86
by Leo Vegoda 20 Jun '23

20 Jun '23

Dear WG, The RIPE NCC has now prepared draft minutes of our session at RIPE 86. You can find them on the website here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ap/minutes/ripe-86-addre… Please write to this list or inform the co-chairs of any issues or corrections. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

2023-02 (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
by Leo Vegoda 13 Jun '23

13 Jun '23

Dear WG, The Review Phase of policy proposal 2023-02 "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments. The proposal will now move forward to the Last Call for Comments Phase. More details about the phases of the Policy development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs

1 0

2023-01 (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
by Leo Vegoda 13 Jun '23

13 Jun '23

Dear WG, The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-01 "Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments. The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document. More details about the phases of the Policy development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs

1 0