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

IPv6 PI assignment policy
by Thomas Drewermann 28 Jun '15

28 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi. The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer. How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.

9 17

What's going on
by Petr Umelov 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

2015-06-24 14:37 GMT+03:00 Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: > Dear colleagues, > > Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and the > stage each has reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). > > If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so > on the relevant working group mailing list. > PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" > OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can only be > re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC > can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the transfer > requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations. > RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% of > the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after they have > been allocated. But there were several calculations showing that the part of the transfers from the last /8 is less than 3% There are facts but europeens somehow don't see them. > STATUS: Last Call > WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > DEADLINE: 21 July 2015 > FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > > We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. > > Kind regards, > > Marco Schmidt > RIPE Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov

1 1

Consensus on 2015-01
by Sander Steffann 22 Jun '15

22 Jun '15

Hello working group, Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they supported the proposal. These included: - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of the final /8 policy - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: - Andre Keller - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) - Carsten Brückner (after deadline) - Carsten Schiefner - Christopher Kunz - Daniel Suchy - Dimitri I Sidelnikov - Erik Bais - Florian Bauhaus - Garry Glendown - Gerald Krause - Havard Eidnes - Herve Clement - Jan Ingvoldstad - Jens Ott - Marius Catrangiu - Martin Millnert (after deadline) - Mick O Donovan - Ondřej Caletka - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN - Riccardo Gori - Richard Hartmann - Robert Sleigh - Sebastian Wiesinger - Thomas Schallar - Tim Kleefass - Tom Smyth (after deadline) - Tore Anderson - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) - Vladislav Potapov David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the final /8. The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a retroactive change are: - Sascha Luck - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and this policy proposal is no different. There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not have much weight in my analysis. There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) - Aleksey Bulgakov - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) - Borhan Habibi - Ciprian Nica - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) - Petr Umelov - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy proposal authors. There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership cost per member to increase. These were: - Ciprian Nica - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.". Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: - Ciprian Nica - Storch Matei In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 pool seems short as it is. Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 2

2015-01 Last Call for Comments (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 22 Jun '15

22 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chair has declared that rough consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 21 July 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 21 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Jun '15

14 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

31 31

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
by Arash Naderpour 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hi Yuri, In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it. (and the only backbone provider has no IPv6 to offer to ISPs). So some Iranian ISPs have to buy IPv4 from other LIRs mostly based in other countries (approx. 1milion IP per year) to be able to meet their network growth needs. (Iran has 80milion population while the total IPv4 allocations is around 10milion) I think that redistributing additional blocks from the last /8 should be based on some additional criteria and not every LIR should be entitled to receive it. (for example if the first /22 has been sold by the LIR, no additional block as the LIR has not a real need for that) Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. I support the idea of letting them receive additional blocks from RIPE NCC directly for their own use. Regards, Arash Naderpour Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 From: Staff <office(a)ip4market.ru> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: <5579CB98.2020505(a)ip4market.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri

6 12

New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Ingrid Wijte 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA on 11 June 2015. 202240-203263 203264-204287 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Complaint and future of the APWG.
by Lu Heng 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: *"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the* *last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is anotherexample of this). There is not really anything we in address policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"* He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: *"Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but thatis the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeedmake the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."* While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: *"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.* *Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:* *1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.* *2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.* *Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.* *Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.* *And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."* >From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > > to stop. Can you also do something about it? > > As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. > > I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency > and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a > stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs > use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not > stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

14 25

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

47 146

Next steps for new LIRs
by David Huberman 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation

10 11