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

Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
by Nick Hilliard 14 Aug '15

14 Aug '15

AP-WG, I've included below an email which was sent to the authors of 2014-03 as a followup to this email (dated Sat May 16 01:40:13 CEST 2015): > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-May/009982.h… Saku, Job and I discussed these ideas but the discussions didn't come to anything. The suggestions below don't fix everything with ASN assignment because 100% solutions don't work. However they provide a practical and workable mechanism which trivially deals with the vast majority of cases, and provides a known working mechanism for creating a run-out pool for ASN16, all based on policy principals which are either in place for other resources, or else which have been tried and tested in practice. I'm planning to write this up as a formal policy proposal in the next short while, as an alternative to 2014-03. If anyone has suggestions or tweaks, please feel free to bring them up. Nick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 00:43:18 +0100 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> To: Job Snijders <job(a)instituut.net>, Saku Ytti <saku(a)ytti.fi> CC: AP WG Chairs <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> Saku, Job, WG Chairs, re: my email to ap-wg of a couple of moment ago, here are some ideas I've been mulling over: - if an end user wants a single ASN32 and they don't already have one, they should get it on the basis of entitlement. - if an end user wants more than one ASN32, they should get it on the basis of a needs-based policy. - if an end user wants one or more ASN16s, they should get it on the basis of an needs-based policy, unless the remaining pool of ASN16s has reached a certain threshold - regardless of the requirement, end users may only receive one ASN16 from the remaining pool, and this should be assigned on the basis of a needs-based policy. The needs criteria can be collated by both operator input and by taking a look at historical assignment reasons: the ripe ncc have 25 years of experience in assigning ASNs and have a large database of reasons that end-users have put forward on their application forms. But we already have a pretty good idea of what this list should include. Basing a new policy along the lines of these principals will provide the following: - no requirement for charging - trivially deals with the most common case, namely assignment of a single asn32 - a runout policy for asn16s which both has well-understood limitations and will probably be palatable to the ripe community, as it's proposed on a similar basis to the last /8 + will be subject to 24m rule. - no practical way of asn32 resource exhaustion because each application will be individually evaluated by an IPRA (either on the basis of 2007-01 for end-user authentication or else on the basis of needs evaluation once that authentication has been completed). - continuation of existing ASN16 policy until a hard limit is hit, after which a run-out policy will apply - conceptually very similar to ipv4 / ipv6 policy. - hopefully an end to lies on asn application forms for asn32s I don't know what you guys feel about these suggestions, but I think they could be used to create something a good deal better than what we have right now. If you want to use these suggestions to form 2014-03 v3.0, you are welcome to do so, but I would ask you kindly to acknowledge my input as appropriate. Alternatively, if either or both of you have got tired of 2014-03, I would be happy to take up the baton and run with something along the lines of the above. Nick

5 12

Promote the use of IRC
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Hi all, Yesterday, I've started a discussion in the member list about promoting the use of IRC instead of Mail List for some kind of discussions, chit chat, etc. Not much members answered, but all who did said yes. The goal is to have, at least, one channel per mail list, but not limited to only that. For this list, an #address-policy channel will be created and administrated by the WG Chairs. We want to use the actual RIPE IRC Server plus Network Services and some more irc servers linked to the Ripe one. What do you think? Regards, --Daniel

19 25

2015-02 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Aug '15

10 Aug '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to ripe-641, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", has been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy change removes the requirement that LIRs return their IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignment when requesting an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-650 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-650 This proposal is implemented with immediate effect. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-02 Last Call for Comments (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 06 Aug '15

06 Aug '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that 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 6 August 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. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 6 August 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Silvia Hagen 28 Jul '15

28 Jul '15

Hi to all +1 I fully support this proposal. I believe it is an important step to allow for useful deployment of IPv6 taking advantage of the advanced and extended IPv6 address architecture. Responding to the request for feedback on the "RIPE understanding" section here are some thoughts and comments: - The overall tone of the "understanding" section still sounds more like "our main goal is to preserve addresses" instead of "let's make generous use oft he extended address architecture and available space" to me. It is not easy to step out of IPv4 thinking. While we all know in our minds that we need to do this, implementing it is much more difficult. (I am for instance referring to this sentence, which appears more than once: " The RIPE NCC will ask for additional documentation to justify why a less address consuming hierarchy or topology can not be implemented."). There is a widely adopted rule that all address conservation mechanisms should be removed from IPv6 address plans. - There is one point where I have a problem to understand, maybe I am misinterpreting the statement. It says " The RIPE NCC will consider longevity reasonable for a similar timeframe for which past growth was documented." - So my question is: how does this accomodate startups? We are moving into the age of the Internet of Things. We expect new technologies and services to spring up, not foreseeable. This includes new business models and opportunities for new companies that have no history. - The policy for subsequent allocations will have to be updated accordingly if this policy is accepted. - Quote: "If this network topology is justified, the RIPE NCC will consider up to one extra bit per hierarchical level or geographical segment as reasonable, on top of the documented need for that part of the network." Comment: how about "generally up to one bit" - leave room for exceptions. - The rules seem quite complicated and a bit hard to really understand and correctly apply to me. I wonder how easy it will be to assess requests based on this. As mentioned already, I believe this proposal is a good step. When it comes to how to apply it, I feel there is a lot of "strictness" in the wording. It is always nice to have clear and strict rules, everyone can easily apply them. But reality is different. There is no good rule without exceptions and I hope that this policy will be applied with common sense and adjusted to reality. And my personal viewpoint is, that we should not restrict IPv6 address plans from the beginning. Our main target should be to finally DEPLOY it as broadly as possible and have ease of operation as a main goal. That is what the address architecture provides. By today we have given out the equivalent of 171'000 /32 of the currently defined global unicast space (2000::/3) (according to Bgpexpert<http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace-ipv6.php>) and this equals 0.032%. Hey that is 171'000 times more than the whole current Internet and we are at 0.032%! I think we should apply a generous allocation model that makes it easy to deploy, operate, secure..... ...and if we get to the point where we feel we have been too generous, we can still adjust policies and become more careful. Once we have used 2000::/3 we still have 7 more chances to do better. We could even define a re-assessment once we are 30% or 50% into the 2000::/3. My two cents, greetings from the summer heat Silvia Hagen Chair Swiss IPv6 Council -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2015 14:20 An: policy-announce(a)ripe.net<mailto:policy-announce@ripe.net> Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Introduction of new assessment criteria used to evaluate IPv6 allocations larger than a /29 - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 7 August 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sunny Connection AG CH-8124 Maur +41 (0)44 887 62 10 www.sunny.ch<http://www.sunny.ch/> http://twitter.com/sunny_shagen ****************************************** IPv6 Business Conference, June 18, 2015, Zurich<http://www.ipv6conference.ch/> International Top Speakers, Unique Program Great Networking - watch out for the 2016 Conference ****************************************** Switzerland is in the Top 5 in IPv6 User Adoption We reached 21% in June 2015! *********************************** Our website is dual-stack - how about yours? ***********************************

5 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by poty＠iiat.ru 27 Jul '15

27 Jul '15

Hello, I do not see any wrong cases here. When my company obtained our address block in 1998 there was one set of policies, since then the policies have been evolved a lot. Nobody asks you to return your address space or changes its USAGE rules, it's only transfer delays, not more, not less. Regards, Vladislav Potapov ________________________________ От: ripe(a)europeiptv.net<mailto:ripe@europeiptv.net> Отправлено: ‎25.‎07.‎2015 19:29 Кому: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Тема: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hello, I do not see that the political right have retroactive effect, is not very democratic change the rules of what was received with other policies, but if I see the correct application of this policy to allocations received after this announcement, how do you see? Best Regards David IPTV EUROPE LTD.

3 3

2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by ripe＠europeiptv.net 26 Jul '15

26 Jul '15

Hello, I do not see that the political right have retroactive effect, is not very democratic change the rules of what was received with other policies, but if I see the correct application of this policy to allocations received after this announcement, how do you see? Best Regards David IPTV EUROPE LTD.

4 3

2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to ripe-643, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy change aligns the transfer requirements for all IPv4 allocations. LIRs that receive an IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC or via a transfer cannot subsequently transfer this allocation to another party within 24 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-649 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 This proposal is implemented with immediate effect. Please note that: - All IPv4 allocation transfer requests received by the RIPE NCC after this announcement will be evaluated under the new policy. - The evaluation of transfer requests received before this announcement will be completed under the previous policy. This policy change particularly concerns IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC. If the RIPE NCC made the allocation less than 24 months ago, the allocation cannot be transferred until the defined holding period has passed. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) - “subsequent allocations”
by LIR (BIT I 5) 23 Jul '15

23 Jul '15

Hi community, hi Tore, the LIR-team of de.government supports this current policy proposal “2015-03 New Draft Document”. +1 In addition we also made up our mind about the resulting inconsistency to the criteria for subsequent allocations. Therefore we plan to propose a “follow-up” proposal which tries to align the subsequent allocation criteria in case of a successful 2015-03 PDP. Kind regards, Annette Suedmeyer LIR de.government ------------------------------------- Bundesverwaltungsamt Bundesstelle für Informationstechnik (BIT) BIT I 5 Besucheradresse: Barbarastr.1 in 50735 Köln (Riehl) Servicezeiten: Montag bis Freitag 08:00 Uhr bis 16:30 Uhr Postadresse: Bundesverwaltungsamt, Barbarastraße 1, 50728 Köln Telefon: +49 22899 358 3551 E-Mail: annette.suedmeyer(a)bva.bund.de Internet: www.bundesverwaltungsamt.de<http://www.bundesverwaltungsamt.de/> www.bit.bund.de<http://www.bit.bund.de/>

2 1

Final consensus on 2015-01: Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Sander Steffann 22 Jul '15

22 Jul '15

Hello working group, We have reached the end of the last-call period for 2015-01 (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations). After analysing the messages on the mailing list that were posted about 2015-01 after the last-call was announced I have come to the conclusion that the consensus declared at the end of the review phase still stands. I therefore declare final consensus on this policy proposal and ask the RIPE NCC to turn it into active policy and implement it. My decision is based on the following: Shahin Gharghi, Petr Umelov and Yuri@Ip4market argued that this proposal doesn't solve all problems. This has already been discussed and acknowledged during the review phase. No policy proposal will ever solve everything all at once. People wanting additional changes are encouraged to submit new policy proposals to address any remaining issues. Petr Umelov was under the impression that RIPE NCC receives a fixed size IPv4 block from IANA every 6 months, which is not correct as pointed out by Leo Vegoda. Petr Umelov and Vladimir Andreev also discussed the statistics on transfers and whether the trend justifies changing policy. Arguments that RIPE NCC has enough address space and a policy change would therefore not be necessary have already been discussed in the review phase and are considered addressed. Vladimir Andreev suggested writing a summary of the discussions so I hope he reads this email. Arash Naderpour argued that with 2015-01 existing LIRs cannot request their last /22 and then immediately transfer it. This has been discussed before: it is one of the actual goals of this policy: to stop LIRs from requesting a /22 just to transfer it. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

3 5