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

2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-02, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", 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/2012-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 December 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Dear AP-WG ;) Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 and /29 without additional justification needed. One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the start of that /29" So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you got it with no issues. But not all of you. We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space). When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy. The policy says: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further documentation." So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never end up with more than a /29 *total* 3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29 Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be extended to a /30. When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow correct this. New suggested text would be: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further documentation." With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that route and draft the policy change proposal? Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change? Thank you very much, Jan Zorz

11 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 12 Nov '12

12 Nov '12

As a broker in the IPv4 space, I support 2012-05 100%. We need transparency in transaction pricing. Otherwise there will continue to be black markets and unscrupulous operators. I view my job as finding buyers to match sellers and finding sellers to match buyer needs. Just as in stock markets, commodity markets, and housing markets, IPv4 markets require open pricing. Only then will most people give this market legitimacy and most of the devious behaviour go away. Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness. For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value. Global barriers to trade (think inter-RIR transfers) have to come down so that prices in one part of the world are not different from other parts. Although this is a little off-topic, the use of needs justification is a huge barrier to honest and open trade (as per Milton's workshop in Baku earlier this week). Companies are doing some very creative things to avoid the RIR justification process and as a result the registries are getting less accurate, and the RIR's spout community credos rather than really look at the problem. The good news is these problems should be gone in 50 years when IPv4 is finally replaced by IPv6! Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 09 Nov '12

09 Nov '12

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

*Sander Steffann*wrote<mailto:address-policy-wg%40ripe.net?Subject=Re:%20%5Baddress-policy-wg%5D%20Status%20of%20/24%20PI%20IPv4%20from%20last%20/8&In-Reply-To=%3CA3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88%40steffann.nl%3E>/@ Wed Oct 3 15:17:43 CEST 2012/: Hello Marcin, >/ I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? / You can find the status here:http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 The policy proposal is in the review phase and under discussion until the 8th of October. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair I'm a little lost too. Are we waiting until RIPE66 or was there supposed to be an update on that? regards, Yannis

20 60

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

Hi Alex. I'm under the impression that you're the right guy to ask about this, but please do forward this message if appropriate. Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis: «It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.» I'm hereby requesting the details on the transfer mentioned. In particular, I'd like to know the date of the transfer, which specific prefix(es) it involved, and the origin and destination LIRs. I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP. Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

8 15

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012102901001081] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Dear Emilio, Thank you for proposal. I write to oppose the pending proposal to publish a record of all transfers conducted under the policy. For example, on stock market no one publish who sold and who bought shares. I think for safety reason. For analyse enought anonymous statistical information about transfers. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom 29.10.2012 20:27 - Emilio Madaio написал(а): Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-05 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The main changes in the new version are: -use of a bullet point layout for the proposal text; -anonymous reports of non-approved transfers. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: [1]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: [2]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 12 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft

8 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

If you have PI you should have agreement with your sponsoring LIR (or RIPE NCC) and with several providers (taking into consideration multihoming). If all of them (wrongly assumed as "either" by you) choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans won't work. What's the difference then with assigned PA block? Alexey Ivanov tried to say that there are several LIRs that are not providers and their MAIN business is provide numbers (IPs, ASns...). They are of the same reliability as sponsoring LIRs and won't leave you without their service, because they want your money. More than that - there MANY providers, LIRs, carriers... which gives you enormous possibilities to change any of the party without any problem. No business harm at all. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:40 PM To: Piotr Strzyzewski Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > Yes, you can. ;-) > > Please make your mind about your arguments. You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Nick, while there is no IP addresses some alternative is better than no alternative at all. You plan for the "may future" and forget about "need now". I don't see any problem with changing PA LIR in case of problems with old one (PI=small block), changing the transit provider for PI also need some DB work, new agreements with new providers and so on. The job has to be done and in modern situation there is no way out of this culprit. For the shining and undoubtful future - the only way is IPv6. Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:46 PM To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 13:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > /24 PA works excelent for multihome. I have a lot examples. I'm sure it does, until the day that the end user gets into contractual problems with the PA LIR and wants to move transit provider, but can't do so easily because they lose the addresses. PI == provider independent. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by George Giannousopoulos 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hello all, I agree that the three months limitation has to go.. However, I also believe that the period for allocations and assignments should be equal Best regards On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

3 2