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

2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

2 1

2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

Sorry, in plain text this time.... Thank you for your comments on proposal 2012-01, which I have submitted. I will undertake to speak to several of the points you have raised. My opinion on the question of the use of the word "sold" is that I would also be ok with the word "transfer". I believe this policy can cover two situations: 1) where related companies, for example ABC-NA transfers a block from ARIN to ABC-EMEA to RIPE-NCC, and no money is exchanged; and 2) where unrelated organizations transfer a block. Only in the second case is money likely to be exchanged in order to encourage the sending organization to initiate the transfer. Thus only the second case is truly a sale. And let's be very clear that I do mean for money to be exchanged: in most cases there is work to be done to free up blocks of IPv4 addresses for re-allocation, and the incentive for entities to do so is financial benefit. Otherwise, large portions of their blocks will continue to sit dormant and unused. The entire purpose of the IPv4 address market is to free up dormant, unused IPv4 addresses to fill needs. A number of people have questioned the 15 month window before allowing a buyer to re-sell. I have had suggestions ranging from 12 months to 36 months. I think the point is that there is some feeling that an entity could acquire IPv4 addresses with the intent to flip them for profit. I am not sure this would be possible since at some point, the transition to IPv6 will make IPv4 addresses a declining value asset. I, for one, believe in a free market for IPv4 addresses, where no holding period is required. In a free market for IP's, the price of IP's would move up and down like the price of a commodity. However, there are artificial trading rules at play with IPv4, so some window seems to be needed. Hence, I chose 15 months as a compromise for those who feel that 15 months allows a company to satisfy its IPv6 conversion needs and possibly be done with IPv4 and be ready to sell them. To Mr. Blessing's question about an LIR changing its policy, I believe the answer is that there would be a legal binding agreement between the buyer and the seller that would cover this situation. The RIPE-NCC policy does not need to cover the legalities between the two parties. I am not sure what the question of a reverse policy refers to? Do you mean to reverse the transaction? If so, you could add a clause that states that the two parties can reverse the transfer at any time in the future or something to that effect. I did have a hypothetical discussion with Sanjaya of APNIC for a situation that may require this. I was asking about a potential lease situation where an APNIC member may wish to lease a block from another RIR. He wondered if the APNIC registry could initially be updated to reflect the lease, and then once the APNIC member had completed the upgrade to IPv6, the IPv4 addresses could be returned to the originator. We then wondered how to reverse the transfer to return the IP's to the owner. This clause above that Mr. Blessing is possibly questioning about would take care of lease returns. I believe these transfers would always be between entities, ie. LIR's. Mr. Hilliard is concerned about Afrinic losing IP's. Frankly, I have not looked at oversupply or demand in the Afrinic region. Right now Afrinic does not have an Inter-RIR transfer policy and by including a statement that RIPE-NCC will only transfer with RIR's that have a policy, you allow Afrinic to take care of itself. Mr. Lenz is concerned about the use of the word "business" purposes. That is, perhaps, a semantic point. I believe that the word business should not be taken too narrowly. Business may be defined as an activity a person or organization is engaged in, and I would just take it at that. Mr. Leefman suggested we realign the proposal to a /21 as the minimum size, and I think that is an excellent suggestion. Other RIR's such as ARIN and APNIC work with a minimum size of a /24 and I was trying to keep RIPE in line with them, but frankly that is such as small block, why bother? Mr. Leefman also suggested changing the requirements for proving need to align with the intra-RIR policy. In checking with Mr. Madaio, he informs me that there have been no intra-RIR transfers to date. That suggests to me that RIPE's intra-RIR policy needs some rework, if I may be blunt. My experience with transfer markets in other RIR service areas has shown three things: 1) that entities need to be assured that their transfers will be approved, when they put money on the line, 2) that when they pay, they don't want, or believe that they should have to, go through the same needs justification process as when they apply for free allocations, 3) while the period of a free allocation may be fixed (ie 3 months), when a business has a need and a business plan for which it acquires IP's it is a much longer time horizon, and it is not RIPE-NCC's role to limit its members business planning horizon to 3 months. (If RIPE approves me for a three month supply now, I have no guarantee I will get another 3 month supply in 3 months....I cannot plan or operate this way!). For example, and you may not care about what other RIR's do, but ARIN has a 24 month supply for a transfer, and as you may know, we are working to convince ARIN to modify its policy on needs justification for transfers. So, I would not support a change in the inter-RIR policy to match your intra-RIR policy. I would instead suggest that you consider modification of your intra-RIR policy to match what your constituents need. Lastly, I like Mr. Van Mook's comments, other than that he opposes the policy. It is excellent and simple to outline the transfer in and transfer out options, and as noted above, I concur with him that the RIPE intra-RIR policy needs clean-up. I guess I thought that was a bigger mountain than I could climb, but if it is possible to have a conversation about doing it at the same time, I am all ears. Again, thank you for your support, your comments, and your thoughtful feedback. Respectfully, Sandra Brown

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Sascha Lenz 05 Apr '12

05 Apr '12

Hi all, > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > I didn't have a change of mind lately, still happy to support it in this form. (Yes, i'm selfish, "more bits to brag with^W^Wmake deployment easier in some cases", no downsides - /29 is reserved anyways for existing LIRs) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Remco Van Mook 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

While I would strongly support the development of an inter-RIR transfer policy (and/or cleanup of the current intra-RIR transfer policy), I don't think this proposal is sufficiently clear and in line with other current policy in the region to work. In other words, I oppose this proposal. (just to be clear for the WG-chairs who are keeping count) What I would like to see instead is a simple framework, outlining the two options: 1) transferring TO the RIPE NCC service region 2) transferring FROM the RIPE NCC service region that clearly define which parts of the regular transfer policy would apply to such a transaction. With that, we keep all the rules about transfers in one place. 1) would be something like 'We welcome any address space transferred to the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with policies at the originating region and the entity receiving the space qualifies as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the service region' 2) would be something like 'You can transfer any address space to outside the RIPE NCC service region as long as transferring it is in line with policies at the receiving region and the address space qualifies for transfer as outlined in the policy for address transfers within the service region' Finally,if you then feel unhappy with the limitations in the current transfer policy, I would very much like to invite anyone to introduce a policy proposal to remove them. Best, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook(a)eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 02-04-12 15:39, "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > >A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >discussion. > >You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > >Regards > >Marco Schmidt >on behalf of the Policy Development Office >RIPE NCC > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.

2 1

[apwg-chairs] 2011-04 Decision to move to Last Call (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Gert Doering 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear AP WG, Sander and I have looked at the mails sent by you about the proposal 2011-04 (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation), and I tried to categorize everything hat has been said into bins like "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", "clarification" - the result of that is at the end of this mail. In the initial discussion phase, I counted nearly 150 e-mails. Of those that expressed a clear "support" or "opposition" opinion, the majority were in support for the proposal, thus we moved on to review phase, with some textual changes as suggested by you. In review phase, 3 people voiced their support, nobody voiced objections, and none of the people that had objections in discussion phase stated their opinion (neither positive nor negative). Given that, we assume that those that had reservations agreed to disagree but didn't want to stop the proposal, or agreed with our assessment that we have enough support to go ahead. The main argument for objection that we could make out was "this is not good stewardship, to give people more addresses than they need, without providing any documentation". I can see the argument, but I'm also convinced that part of good stewardship is 'finding the right balance between "too big" and "too small"' - and since a number of operators have spoken up and said that being able to increase their /32 to a /29 "just so" would ease their deployment, we took that as a strong enough counterargument. The argument voiced that "we should not make a specific proposal for 6rd" was already taken into account - the proposal is technology-agnostic. So, we think that we have enough support and no sustained opposition to call consensus, and move to Last Call. Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO tomorrow. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair ----------------------------------------------------- Discussion Phase pro Michael Adams (want bits, not 6rd) Roger Jørgensen Anfinsen, Ragnar Sascha Lenz (want bits, not 6rd) Andy Davidson (with "ask for it" clause) Daniel Holme (no protocol specifics!) James Blessing (with additions for existing address holders, taken into v2.0 Jasper Jans David Freedman Roman Sokolov Tero Toikkanen Job Snijders Tom Hodgson (more bits, not tied to mechanisms) Wilhelm Boeddinghaus Rinse Kloek Sascha Luck Florian Fuessl Jerzy Pawlus Daniel Roesen against, with "want to see proper documentation that says 6rd" James Blessing [answered by Jan Zorz, discussion ended, later agreed] Martin Millnert Mikael Abrahamsson [give everybody who says "6rd" a /31] Nick Hilliard [answered by Jan Zorz, "is ask-for-it enough?"] Tim Chown against, with "make it easy to get a /29, but not automatic, ask for it" Remco Van Mook [answered by Jan Zorz, taken into v2.0 -> agreed] against, with "6rd is a bad protocol and there should be a temporary block" Turchanyi Geza [answered by Jan Zorz, "this is not 6rd-specific", Ole Troan, Ragnar Anfinsen] clarification Mikael Abrahamsson (reservation of a /26?) [answered by chair and proposer] Andy Davidson (would reservation be OK from global policy PoV?) Martin Stanislav (please clarify exact rules for /29../31, answered by prop.] unclear whether in favour or against Dan Luedtke Martin Millnert (*if* 6rd as a special case, make it temporary-only) [answered by Jan Zorz] Daniel Suchy chrish(a)consol.net "not big enough" side-track Randy Bush (let's go to a /16) [answered by chair, David Conrad, Roger Jørgensen, Jan Zorz, Florian Weimer] "make subsequent allocation policy easier (instead of initial?)" side-track Dan Luedtke [answered by Michael Adams, chair] Daniel Roesen [answered by chair, Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook] "does 6rd need a /31 or /24?" side-track Mikael Abrahamsson, Jan Zorz "which operators are asking for 6rd" side-track Martin Millnert, Jan Zorz, Michael Adams "alternatives to 6rd" and "is it infinite?" side-track Ahmed Abu-Abed [answered by Jan Zorz, Remco Van Mook, Ole Troan, Nick Hilliard, Roger Jørgensen] "why not make it a /26 or /24 right away?" side-track Roger Jørgensen, Leo Vegoda, Nick Hilliard, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz ------------------------------------------------------------------- review phase pro Michael Adams Tiberiu Ungureanu Gleb Katenin side-track: "subsequent allocations Michael Adams, Tiberiu Ungureanu, Daniel Roesen, Jan Zorz, Nick Hilliard side-track: "how much address space does google have?" chrish(a)consol.net, Gleb Katenin -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 2

2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 2 May 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Alexander Leefmann 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Dear working group, > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > --> a) I don't like the idea, that this proposal tries to allow smaller networks then the minimum /21 (for the last /8 then /22) allocations to be transferred into the RIPE NCC region. As some may know there is a "marketplace" for IPv4 allocations in the LIR portal right now. On this marketplace the minimum size of a allocation to transfer is /21. I would strongly recommend not to de-aggregate allocations any further. On the other way if the author of the proposal can explain why she choose a /24 as minimum transfer size I would like to hear her reasons for that and maybe why not a /25 - yes I am aware of the "common sense" of filtering. --> c) Why would someone like to change the requirements a RIPE NCC member needs to fulfill to get an allocation? In other words I would like to read something like "the recipient must be able to explain the need of this allocation and will use a minimum of 50% of it for it's own services or businesses". To be honest when reading "[...]will not be sold within 15 months[...] I get the idea of making a business out of IPv4. I am sure that the author does mean something else and I wold love to hear her explanation of this wording. In general I like the idea of transferring IPv4 allocation into RIR regions where there is a good need of this resources. BUT I don't like the idea of bringing policies in position to use the exhaustion of IPv4 as a business. And since the whole proposal with words like "sell" sounds like a business plan. RIRs give internet ressources based on needs not on price tags. If we start to official sell resources RIRs will become money driven then community driven. Again I believe that the author of the proposal wasn't thinking of money when writing this idea down and can now explain to me why I am a paranoid. Thank you all for your attention. Best regards -- Alex

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by McTim 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Hi all, In general, I'm not sure what a transfer policy will accomplish that can't already be done by an EU org becoming an ARIN (for example member). Lots of orgs in the EU are already members of other RIRs. Obviously, it will enable the authors company to do more business, but I'm not sure that is a compelling reason to adopt this policy proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would not be in support of this proposal. I am willing to be persuaded however. I'm not too happy with the word "sold" or the 15 months limit. If this gets support, I would rather the word "transfer" be used and the limitation on transfer be more like 36 months. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 4/2/12, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > >

3 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Sascha Lenz 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hi all, > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > i'm not really convinced right now about the proposal text (i do support the general idea though). My main concern is : "1. The IPv4 addresses will be used for business purposes and will not be sold within 15 months." Why on earth should only "business purposes" be a valid reason for acquiring legacy IP space by that policy? I don't like that wording. Why aren't NCOs or similar considered here? I come from a time where there wasn't any business on the internet, and i still like to think about all those non-commercial organizations out there (someone has to?). I guess, that's just a wording problem though no one really thought about it - or is this really intentionally? Or did i just get something wrong here? => I don't support the proposal with the CURRENT wording (or someone explain it to me) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 02/04/2012 15:39, Marco Schmidt wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ This proposal contains the following statement: > Hence there is a significant over-supply of IPv4 in North America versus > the rest of the world. In a global economy, membership in any particular > RIR should not be a barrier to acquiring IPv4 Addresses when the source > is not within the same RIR region. I'm not going to argue about the amount of address space allocated within continental north america, but just point out that a policy of this form will apply equally for exchanging address space in+out of the afrinic region - which has the least well developed internet infrastructure, the greatest deficit of ip addresses and the longest expected exhaustion time. If it happens that the net movement of IP address is out of the afrinic area and towards the rest of the world, then the infrastructural deficit in Africa will be even more disadvantaged than it currently is. Nick

1 0