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

2008-06 (Use of final /8) and 2009-04 (IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment) Policy Proposals Withdrawn
by Ingrid Wijte 13 Apr '10

13 Apr '10

PDP Number: 2008-06 Use of final /8 PDP Number: 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment Dear Colleagues These proposals have been withdrawn. They are now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-04.html The authors decided that they want to make a new proposal (see proposal 2010-02). Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

80% rule, based on feedback from the NCC RS department
by Gert Doering 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Hi APWG, one of the issues pointed out by Alex le Heugh from the RIPE NCC RS department at the last RIPE meeting was the "80% rule" for additional IPv4 allocations, which has multiple, contradictory definitions in the current address policy documents. See here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/leheux-rough-edges-… on page 17-21 and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-484.html, section 5.3 and 5.4 The different sections of the policy text both describe the rule slightly differently. This makes it unclear how the 80% rule should be applied. Let me explain by example: - a LIR has a /16, which is at 95% utilization, and a /19 that is at 40% utilization. Over all their address space, the utilization would be 88%. - interpretation 1: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, every *single* of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR will not get a new allocation, because the /19 is only at 40%" - interpretation 2: "if a LIR holds multiple allocations, the grand total of them needs to be filled by 80%" would result in "the LIR *will* get another allocation, because they have used 88%". Personally, I think that the interpretation according to 5.3 of the IPv4 address policy document ("interpretation 2") is the intention of the policy. 5.4 (sub-allocations) was added later, and has language about the 80% criteria that is misleading - this section is only concerned about sub-allocations, and "the 80% sentence" was put in there to emphasize the existing rule, not to change it (I know that from the proposer of this policy change...). Now, "just changing the text according to what the WG chair thinks" would not be the right thing - so what I think is the way forward now is to get feedback from *you*, and if there is clear guidance from the working group on resolving this ambiguity, we run a formal proposal to change the wording of the document in one way or the other. (Please don't get into sidetrack discussions on whether "80%" or "IPv4" is useful, but focus on this specific question.) thanks, and regards, Gert Doering, APWG Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 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

6 5

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 07 Apr '10

07 Apr '10

Jim Reid wrote: > I'm not sure Shane that an allocation of vanity addresses would fit > with these goals. If it does, then fine. Though I'm doubtful. If > there were "too many" vanity assignments, that may well fragment the > unused space in a way that prevents another LIR getting a contiguous > allocation that's big enough for their genuine technical needs. It > might also encourage a land-grab by people gobbling up vanity space > that they don't actually need in the hope that they could sell it on > later. Jim, I fully understand this concern. An overly large number of assignments might fragment the address space and lead to people trying take advantage of an opportunity to resell addresses. Something like Cybersquatting that is practiced with domain names. However I think that the RIPE community is capable of stopping that. That would require formal and very serious requirements for requesting vanity addresses for certain projects that will benefit the people. Honestly, I'm not even sure that there will be so many people interested in getting such ip-addresses if the process is a formal and not a simple one. Besides, we would very much like for our request to be reviewed by the committee from RIPE NCC in a speacial manner. Because we're requesting these addresses not for resale or direct monetary benefit and think that if we're given them all parties are going to win. We're trying to make the internet a safer place for millions of people and improve the present technical infrastructure at the same time by creating a distributed network of available and effective DNS-servers in Russia and Europe. I can't speak for Europe but in Russia and its neighboring countries the existing DNS-structure has a lot of problems such as slow channels and outdated equipment, lack of DNSSEC support and protection from attacks. All this we want to change. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak

3 2

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 06 Apr '10

06 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address > space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I > thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right? > The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular > resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any > sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much > freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think > the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the > rare case where someone asks for these. As far as we're concerned we're going to follow all the necessary requirements and formalities needed for assignment of a block of IP-addreesses. We're ready to apply throught a standard procedure from the name of our company, or through one of the present LIRs. We could even get a status of a LIR for our company if needed and pay the initial fee and yearly fees. We hope that an assignment of the minimal IP block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24 (or 2.2.2.0/21) will not cause any routing problems, because the availability of this address from any part of the world will be achieved throught BGP Anycast. > Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that > we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this > process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared > to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no > complaints.... We're trying to figure out if there are any reasons that make an assignment of the requested range technically challenged, but apparently there are any restrictions. According to this experiment of APNIC, described in the RIPE blog: http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18, engineers from the APNIC or RIPE NCC have a certain freemdom in experimenting with undistributed addresses like 1.1.1.1 (2.2.2.2) ? That means that theoretically it is possible to manually enter data in the RIPE database and manually distribute address 2.2.2.2 for it to find a really beneficial application for the internet community, and not just go away to another company that sets up something like DSL-connection pool, because for them vanity addresses are totally irrelevant. I'd like to point it out one more time that we're talking about a very useful and free DNS service for the end-users, that will allow millions of people from Russia and Europe to speed up DNS-requests and filter out untrustful websites like with malware and phishing content... Besides, we hope to provide services for parents preventing children from accessing forbidden websites. This alone will benefit millions of internet users too. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

6 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > To be clear, we're not talking about anyone getting more or less address > space, or allocating in a way that makes aggregation more difficult. I > thought those were the two basic goals of IP allocation policy, right? > The RIPE NCC does not have any restrictions on which particular > resources it allocates or assigns. In fact, I am pretty sure that any > sensible person would argue that the RIPE NCC should have as much > freedom as possible to do things in the most efficient way. So I think > the RIPE NCC already has the power to issue "vanity addresses" in the > rare case where someone asks for these. As far as we're concerned we're going to follow all the necessary requirements and formalities needed for assignment of a block of IP-addreesses. We're ready to apply throught a standard procedure from the name of our company, or through one of the present LIRs. We could even get a status of a LIR for our company if needed and pay the initial fee and yearly fees. We hope that an assignment of the minimal IP block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24 (or 2.2.2.0/21) will not cause any routing problems, because the availability of this address from any part of the world will be achieved throught BGP Anycast. > Mostly I find it a pity that the NCC wasn't more accommodating and that > we're having this discussion at all. Maybe the software used for this > process does not have a manual override or something? Oh well, compared > to the horror stories I hear about the bad old days, I guess we have no > complaints.... > In the end I suppose we can just let the addresses fall wherever and let > "the market" sort it out, now that there is a "trading" policy. While > the desire for vanity addresses might accelerate the process of IP > addresses becoming property, that is probably inevitable, so it won't > change the big picture too much. -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

1 0

Re: Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Shane Kerr wrote: > As for actually getting the RIPE NCC to issue a resource based on a > request... I think there are two ways to go about this. One is making it > a POLICY matter, and going through the PDP and updating the relevant > documents. The other is solving it PROCEDURALLY, which basically means > convincing the RIPE NCC to accept special requests and handle them when > possible. Very interesting idea. If there is a way to solve our issue PROCEDURALLY, that means there's no need to alter the present POLICY. > In summary: > * I support allowing people to request specific unused resources > * I hope that can be done without a policy change In fact we originally hoped to solve our issue in this manner, when we addressed RIPE directly. Do you know of any similar requests in the past? How were they solved? Who can we refer to in RIPE NCC with this request? -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

1 0

2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '10

02 Apr '10

Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492) Summary of Proposal: This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines. The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC. Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone. Policy Text: a. Old text Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492. b. New policy text Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492: -- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken. All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1! The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. -- a. Arguments supporting the proposal Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all. This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above). Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.

13 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Gennady, are you trying to say that Google doensn't know the best marketing techniques? P.S: Google has chosen for their DNS-service an easy to remember 8.8.8.8 address ;-) > Remembering domain names and IP addressess are absolutely different > things. Domain names are on the user level, IP addressess are not. > Let's not make such "dirty hacks" to multi-level networking model :) > (I avoid "7-level OSI model" phrase here). > So, it's bad idea to build PR/marketing campaign based on "beautifull" > IP-address. It's something like beautifull (from user, not engineer > view) design of motherboards, gearboxes, etc.. It may be fine, but not > more, there is a lot of more important things user should consider > about. > I completely can't understand, why you so need "easy-to-remember" > addressess and don't you have a better way to make your services more > user-friendly and PRable.

2 1

Easy to remember IP-address
by Sergey Gotsulyak 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Gentlemen, Some days ago, I told Jaap Akkerhuis about allocation of 2.2.2.0/24 address space for our DNS-service and he advice me to contact this workgroup. Our company Ideco is located in Russia and is in the business of developing and selling Internet gateways for small and middle businesses in Russia as well as billing software for ISPs. We’re now starting a new project for Russia and Eastern Europe that will provide secure Internet access for educational institutions, commercial and non-profit organizations. We’re planning to set up a number of DNS-centers that will block malware, adult websites and phishing links. For this project we’ll need an easy to remember IP-address, for example like the one for Google Public DNS service (8.8.8.8) We have contacted RIPE NCC with a request to get a block of addresses 2.2.2.0/24, but were told that the standard procedure does not allow us to choose an address range. Is it possible to modify current Address Policy? -- Kind regards, Sergey Gotsulyak Ideco Sales Team 280 Madison Ave, Suite 912 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (800) 715-3502 Email: goz(a)idecogateway.com Web: www.idecogateway.com

13 21

2010-01 New Policy Proposal (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Ingrid Wijte 18 Mar '10

18 Mar '10

PDP Number: 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies 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/2010-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 April 2010. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

5 9