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

A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
by Brian Nisbet 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Afternoon, First off let me say that I am broadly in agreement with 2008-03, but I wished to make clear my thoughts on the incompatibility of the two proposals in the subject. I see 2008-03 as an exercise in fairness, a way to evenly distribute the last few /8s, rather than reaching a point where, particularly, AfriNIC and LACNIC need more addresses and find there to be none. However it strikes me that this policy is completely incompatible with 2007-09. If both policies were introduced then I can easily envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03. The worse case scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they may see very little of that last /8. I realise that many people have different views of the impetus behind 2008-03, but I can only view it through my eyes, so apologies if anyone feels I'm attributing motive where there is none. Regards, Brian.

7 15

RE: [address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09
by Raul Echeberria 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

Michael: I disagree with you. RIR YES would need a policy for doing what you are suggesting. In fact, the policy proposed is a particular case of what you are suggestign. When there are only 5 /8s IANA ask all the RIRs what would be your future (short term) needs. And obviously the answer would be "At least one /8". Raúl At 06:59 a.m. 01/06/2008, michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote: > > I am curious about other situation. > > Suppose that IANA allocates the last 2 /8s to the RIR A and > > one day later IANA receives a request from the RIR B that is > > running out of > > IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s. > >I don't think that IANA would ever do this because it would be >an incredibly stupid thing to do. Since I have never heard IANA >being accused of gross incompetence before, I have to believe >that when they receive that request from RIR A, they will ask all >the other RIRs about how many addresses they need before allocating >anything. In fact, I expect IANA to do this well before the last >2 /8 blocks. Then, after consulting all RIRs, I expect IANA to >publish their intentions and ask for comments before allocating >any blocks. > >This is just good business practice and I don't think that the RIRs >need to write policies which tell IANA to do this. > >--Michael Dillon > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1474 >- Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m.

2 1

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kelaidi Christina 29 May '08

29 May '08

Dear colleagues ETNO's recently submitted a contribution, titled "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World-Principles", to the RIPE address-policy-wg mailing list (available also to the ETNO web site, http://www.etno.be/Default.aspx?tabid=2058). This contribution provides an analysis on why, according to ETNO Members, any emerging marketplace should not determine IPv4 address exhaustion management. Quoting some basic arguments from the abovementioned contribution, ETNO believes that it is the successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Therefore, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Therefore based on the above, ETNO members could not support the 2007-08 Policy Proposal, Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues WG.

5 6

2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 May '08

27 May '08

PDP Number: 2007-08 Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2007-08 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. This proposal outlines a framework to migrate previously allocated IPv4 resources from one Local Internet Registry (LIR) to another LIR within the RIPE NCC Service Region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-424-draft2007-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 15 April 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

7 16

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kinder, Klaus 27 May '08

27 May '08

Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi@localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom|

1 0

2007-08 review phase comments
by Kinder, Klaus 27 May '08

27 May '08

Hello, > From: "Kelaidi Christina" kelaidi@localhost > Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:13 +0300 >From the LIR|de.telekom|point of view and as a member from ETNO, we explicitly endorse this position. Klaus Kinder Deutsche Telekom Technischer Service Central Services Local Internet Registry|de.telekom|

1 0

Feedback from the WG chairs group on 2007-01
by Gert Doering 21 May '08

21 May '08

Hi APWG folks, we have received feedback from the Working Group Chairs Collective regarding the policy process on 2007-01: --- Dear APWG Chairs, The Working Group Chairs Collective has received your request to check consensus has been reached on policy proposal 2007-01. After reviewing the discussion, we could not reach consensus that significant changes between versions 1 and 2 of the document received sufficient attention within the Review and Last Call periods, and as such the proposal may not have received the appropriate levels of scrutiny. Due to lack of consensus within the group of Working Group Chairs, we ask that the proposal is reconsidered. --- This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. (Please don't start a big discussion now on the outcome - the policy process says that the group of all Working Group Chairs needs to agree that the process has been followed correctly. There were serious concerns, and thus there was no consensus on this - and the only way forward is to re-enter review phase, which we'll do shortly.) As I assume that we'll reach consensus again, work on the related proposals (2006-01 for IPv6 PI etc.) will continue in parallel. regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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

4 6

2008-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-02 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-01 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 May '08

15 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

10 11