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

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Sander Steffann 22 Sep '09

22 Sep '09

Hello everyone, It has been quiet for some time now, so I think we should start to discuss the final /8 proposals again. In part 2 of the discussion, we discussed how many addresses an LIR should be able to get from the final /8. I'll try to summarize that part of the discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something: Most people preferred option b: All requests are downscaled by a certain factor Some people preferred option a: Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block There were comments that IPv4 would never run out, but let's assume that it will run out. In the worst (best?) case we won't need this final /8 policy, so it doesn't hurt to be prepared when we do need it. Because most people preferred option b, let's discuss some of the details to see if we can make that work. If we are going to downscale address space requests, how should we do that? Some issues: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). I would like to leave PI assignments out od the discussion for now. I think we have enough PA related questions to discuss, but don't worry: we will get to the PI discussion later. As before: please stay on topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is :) Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

6 18

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by Flor Paredes 21 Sep '09

21 Sep '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 2/8 and 46/8 from the IANA in September 2009. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size from these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Please also note that several "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. These prefixes are: 2.0.0.0/16, pingable 2.0.0.1 2.1.0.0/21, pingable 2.1.0.1 2.1.24.0/24, pingable 2.1.24.1 46.0.0.0/16, pingable 46.0.0.1 46.1.0.0/21, pingable 46.1.0.1 46.1.24.0/24, pingable 46.1.24.1 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Regards, Flor Paredes Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
by Remco van Mook 17 Sep '09

17 Sep '09

Not everybody is going to run out at the same time because there are likely already LIRs whose assignment rate is so low they'll still have space from their current allocation in 2015 or so - intentional or not. Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thu Sep 17 16:11:53 2009 Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2 > Agree for as long as there are addresses enough to meet the applicants > needs. Yet it is IMHO pointless to hand out micro-blocks as a sorry > response to a PA-request for a substantially larger block. In particular, what if the applicant's competitor just received a much larger allocation two weeks earlier? That's why I think that any policy change related to the last IPv4 allocations should focus on some way to make sure that all LIRs run out of IPv4 at roughly the same time. Maybe the policy change needs to take effect before we reach the last /8 from IANA. Maybe we need some kind of cap on maximum allocation that shrinks month by month. Maybe we should link the allocation size to the number of weeks it would take to use it up given the applicant's historical run-rate, and then shrink that number of weeks every month. > This isn't > about forcing anyone in any particular direction, but about whether it > is of greater benefit to the community at large to allocate > such blocks > to organizations with a potential to enable connectivity between large > numbers of new users and the existing v4 network. Has anyone clearly explained how any organization would enable such connectivity in a way that existing LIRs could not? It sounds like people are assuming that there may be some magic bullet while in reality there are just network providers providing services. The technical details of those services change over time for all LIRs. Innovation is not restricted to new entrants. --Michael Dillon 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, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

1 0

(no subject)
by Kamil Semavi 11 Sep '09

11 Sep '09

How can I transfer a subnet from one AS to another AS number? Thanks Kamil

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Confirmed
by Axel Pawlik 10 Sep '09

10 Sep '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The nomination period for appointment to the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) has now closed. This year, in accordance with the Number Resource Organization's Memorandum of Understanding (NRO MoU), the RIPE community will elect one individual to fill the seat that is being vacated by Dave Wilson, who was elected to a three-year term on the NRO NC that began on 1 January 2007. The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the NRO NC from the RIPE NCC service region: - Dave Wilson The representative elected to the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2010. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2009/confirmed-nominations.html The election to fill this seat will be held at the RIPE 59 Meeting that takes place in Lisbon, Portugal from 5-9 October 2009. For more information about the NRO NC and the selection process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/about-nc.html Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director, RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

>> I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have >> a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only >> world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think >> they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of >> the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this >> might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. > > Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if > some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose > networks are pure v6. That would mean that a new ISP can only enter the market when buying a service from an existing ISP. I don't know if this would be seen as anti-competitive, but I suspect it will. Especially because we could make policy that prevents (well, significantly postpones) that situation. - Sander PS: I make the assumption here that not everything will be reachable over native IPv6 when the new company wants to start. I think this is a reasonable assumption for the first years at least.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hi Michael, Thank you for your feedback. > ??? > After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as > anti-competitive? I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. - Sander

2 1

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hello again, I'm trying to keep this policy proposal discussion on-topic. We have already discussed two parts, and we should really focus on this third part now. If we keep going back to the beginning we will never get work done... I'll repeat my questions to the list: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). Jim is suggesting that we don't change any policies for the final /8. That would be a downscaling factor of 1. With the current allocation rate of the RIPE NCC (see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, graph 28e) that would mean that the final /8 will be allocated in about 4 to 6 months. Michael proposed to hold a meeting to divide the final /8. After that happens a new entrant will not be able to get any IPv4 addresses from the NCC. This might be seen as the established companies (us) trying to prevent new competition... We now have the chance to prevent that situation, and we should make good policies now to prevent that from happening. At least in the first couple of years after IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. We can't just think about the current LIRs. If we do a bad/anti-competitive/etc job here some governments will have a good excuse to take the IP address allocation right away from the RIPE community. They might leave us alone, but do we really want to count on that? Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

3 2

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job? > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those > > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone > > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. > > > It's also > > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process > > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. > > The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing > policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the > remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants > who have requested a piece of the final /8. > > > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little > > motivation > > > to reach a decision and not enough information available > to make a > > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > > > > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a > > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need > > fixing. > > This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option > c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration. > > > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) > > Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is > not the best way to proceed? > > --Michael Dillon > > >

4 3

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Hi! > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. What's meetings got to do with IPv6 trials? > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. Did you take a look at the v6-dfz before writing this? At a quick glance in Frankfurt I see slightly more v6 downstream asn advertised from 8881 than from 5400. ;-) But enough on that... that's no topic for an apwg discussion. Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 16:35 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at > > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks > > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs > > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. > > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. > > Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 > addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. > > > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important > > enough to make > > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or > > because they've > > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > > > > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat > > quite arrogant by that. > > > > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a > > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by > > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of > > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop > > soonest possible. > > Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with > how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how > RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If > RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a > general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > > > We're in internet business - and rely on > > phys presence. That's ridicilous. > > It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that > we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of > IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient > protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? > > So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? > > --Michael Dillon > >

1 0