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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 03 Oct '13

03 Oct '13

Apologies for a very late +1 MVH/Best Regards Ragnar > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt > Sent: 19. september 2013 16:45 > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Cleanup) > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal > described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and > Cleanup) > are edited and published. > > The amendments are: > > - Retain "Fairness" goal > > - Retain "Need" for final /22 allocations > > - Clarify criteria for IXP assignment expansions > > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

RFC7020: The Internet Numbers Registry System
by Hans Petter Holen 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

In August the IETF published RFC7020 "" The Internet Numbers Registry System" as a replacement for RFC2050. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020 A question came up at today's Address Council call today: - "Does any of the global or regional policies need review following this?" I assume not - but it could be good to have the wg participants thoughts on this too. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

7 11

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Richard Hartmann 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

+1 Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

> The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, > "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published. +1. Sandra Brown

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

+1 Tore

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, > "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published. > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 > Ah, excellent. This changed turned out just as well-formulated as I hoped, and the impact analysis matched my expectations. What's not to like? :) +1 -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Donal Cunningham 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

> The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, > "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published. +1. D. Airspeed Telecom

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Richard Hartmann 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Dear all, I support the general direction of this proposal. If it included v4, I would still be in favor. That being said, I am not sure about the prefix sizes listed in this proposal. According to section 5.1.2 of the new text, everyone will receive at least a /32 unless the addresses will be used for a special purpose as per section 6. In this case, allocations can be made in allocations of /48: * Operating a TLD: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an ENUM: 1-4 * /48 * Operating an IXP: 1 * /48 * Operating a DNS root server: 1 * /32 There are three concerns with this: 1) Assuming everyone will get at least a /32, why limit core internet infrastructure, i.e. TLDs, ENUMs, and IXPs to a mere /48? The combined amount of those allocations will be dwarfed by the combined amount of LIRs and End Users. 2) While there are a _lot_ of addresses with IPv6, handing a multi-homed End User who will be able to operate on a single /48 for the foreseeable future a whole /32 appears to be wasteful. Maybe that's v4 speaking through me, but still... 3) Becoming a LIR costs several thousand Euros up front and then per year. Not being a LIR and simply getting the same /32 will, under current pricing schemes, cost €50. Becoming a LIR would become an extremely stupid business move over night. This means the existing LIRs will be stuck with paying whatever price increases happen over the years. That, in turn, means LIRs will start trying to redistribute the cost. And _that_ will become ugly very quickly. I am not saying my suggested answers are perfect, but my gut feeling tells me that while the distinction between "this is PA, hand it to your customers" and "this is PI, don't you dare using it for anyone but yourself" does not make sense, there should still be a distinction between "we need a few v6 addresses" and "we need a lot v6 addresses". Two possible approaches: * Non-LIR allocations could be limited to a single aggregated equivalent of, e.g. a /40 or /41. If someone needed more, let them become a LIR. * Do away with the flat fee of €50 per Independent Number Resource and charge based on size. This would also somewhat prevent people from grabbing as much IP space as possible. As an aside, reading [1] is needlessly hard. There are several sections where text on the left-hand side does not appear on the right-hand side. New text on the right-hand side is marked in blue; disappearing text on the left-hand side is not marked in any way. This is yet another reminder of why migrating to plain text with an automated storage and diffing back-end ASAP will be a Good Thing. Richard [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/other-documents/draft-ipv6-address-allocatio…

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sylvain Vallerot 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Hi all, Unfortunately we do not support this new proposal, because conservation still is a goal to us, as IPv4 public ressource keeps being vital for many structures. Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private sector and market. Moreover, the rationale "supporting arguments" list doesn't convince us at all, let me be more explicit : 1. reduced bureaucracy : I do not consider proper use of ressources and justification as just "bureaucracy" but as a necessity to take good care 2. for long-term business planning: from 2 year to infinity ? is this serious, we are talking about IPv4 here ? 3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand are we stupid or something ? 4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation" this cannot be a supporting argument, one does not just suppress a criteria to ease the problem 5. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming properly made documentation should not take time to show for LIRs, and Ripe does not expect time spared for itself on the other side 6. Reduction of RIPE NCC workload or not : see impact analysis part C, that says no workload nor financial benefit is to be expected in the Ripe NCC. 7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system". supress rules so no ones will cheat them ? this is nonsense. 8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise IPv4 and IPv6 are not similar, why should policies be ? Unfortunately counter-arguments have been provided for each "con" arguments. I deeply regret it was not done for "pro" arguments because many (above) do not resist a tiny bit of attention. Eventually, it was not mentionned (despite this was discussed previously) that the disappearance of the conservation goal could stop the unused space collection, thus artificially accelerating the depletion and its disastrous effects for some little structures. Best regards, Sylvain Vallerot

17 45

2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 October 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0