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

Changing the Status of PI Address Space
by Elvis Daniel Velea 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

Hi everyone, I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens. The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR has been stopped and I would like to restart it. My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs. By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly recorded in the registry/RIPE Database. By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented. Therefore, I'm curious: - should we restart the discussion? - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min /22) - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement? Kind regards, Elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

7 9

Post Ident / Post Brief
by Nick Hilliard 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

As there are legal prohibitions in place which prevent german nationals (and possibly other countries) from photocopying their passports, would it be possible for the RIPE NCC to give an opinion on whether Post Ident would be acceptable as an alternative to photocopying passports / driving licenses / etc for PI address applications? Post Ident is considered to be suitable identity certification from the point of view of the german money laundering act. Nick

24 43

IPv6 PA/PI - restarting discussion after failed 2013-06 proposal
by Elvis Daniel Velea 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

Hi everyone, 2013-06 has failed to become policy and we all understand that it presented such big changes that it became too complex. I would like to restart that discussion and see what are the problems/failures of the IPv6 policies (both PI and PA) and come up with a proposal to fix these problems. I'd like to start with the first 4 problems that I have noticed: #1. In IPv4 a PI user can connect a customer to it's network or allow a customer to use a dedicated server using one IP address. This limitation had been extended to up to a /29 (in case redundant connections were offered - ie:VRRP) but most of the cases I have encountered were using either a /32 or a /30. Currently, the IPv6 policy states that the minimum a customer should use is a /64. And because the minimum per customer is a /64, when someone would actually use IPv6 PI for a customer, it would make an assignment of a subnet and violate the policy. I've heard of people using /128s for the servers of their customers and sharing the same vlan amongst multiple customers in the same /64. Others are just requesting a/48 PI and expect never to come back for more (therefore, could not care less about policies). Others just know that the RIPE NCC has no way to see if they sub-assign parts of the /48 PI, so they just request a /48 PI, promise never to sub-assign and later on, forget about the promise. Therefore, I propose that the first change we make to the IPv6 PI policy is that where a /64 could be used per customer (regardless of the service offered to that customer) only if it is registered properly in the RIPE Database. The change would allow PI users to sub-assign in IPv6, but only small (?) amounts of space and only if they actually register the assignment. #2. Second problem I've noticed is the fact that LIRs can receive /32s (and up to /29s) only by asking. On the other hand, if you do not want to become a RIPE NCC member or just can not, you are forced to use IPv6 - a /48. Additionally, this IPv6 PI can only be used for your own infrastructure and not to provide any service (other than SaaS) to your customers without violating the policy (see problem statement #1). One could request more than a /48 but it would need to demonstrate that it has two or more sites that have different routing policies or demonstrate that it has a need for more than 65K subnets. I would like to introduce the IPv6 PI ALLOCATION. This time, the PI allocation could be made to the PI user and the user could actually make assignments from it. The PI allocation would be just as large as the PA Allocation and the price for it would be no less than 50% of the membership fee (Off course, the fees can only be voted upon at the GM and the example is just purely theoretical). This would introduce that 'additional registry' which we never knew how to name during the discussions of 2013-06 and would allow PI users to request/receive a /29 from which they could make assignments. Everyone will say that /32 or /29 will become the new /48. Well, that may be true, on the other hand, it may be the price that could keep the number of large PI Allocations low. Additionally, we could add an arbitrary limit. For example, say that you can request an IPv6 PI Allocation only if you already have x hundred customers that will receive an assignment from you immediately. #3. Minimum assignment size The policy says that the minimum assignment size is a /64. However, the RIPE Database does not enforce this rule and I have seen /128s registered. for example: inet6num: 2001:b70:f000::/112 inet6num: 2001:820:0:1:1::1000/116 inet6num: 2a01:2f0f:ffff:ffff:100:1000::1/128 There are over 700 inet6num objects registered which are below a /64. If we take the policy literally, all these assignments currently violate the policy. Therefore, I think we should either change/remove the minimum assignment size or have the RIPE Database block the creation of any IPv6 assignment smaller than a /64. #4. fix utilisation and hd-ratio vs assignment size While the HD-ratio is being calculated in terms of /56s, the policy says (at point 5.4.1.) that the minimum assignment that can be made is a /64. Furthermore, as you can see above, /128s can be registered in the RIPE Database as well. If we will continue allowing the registration of less than /56 assignments, it will be difficult to almost impossible to the IPRAs to actually calculate what is the HD-ratio of an IPv6 allocation. While now it is too early to see additional IPv6 allocation requests, if we keep doing things as we've been doing for the past years, we will end up in a few years with a huge mess in the registry and the impossibility to calculate the HD-ratio without applying random procedures. A very simple and quick fix would be to say that if any prefix is registered, the whole /56 that includes the prefix is in use. But then, we may see people registering/using /128s from different /56s just to reach the HD-ratio for an additional allocation. Would that still be considered an efficient usage? An other option would be to change the HD-ratio calculation to the actual number of IP addresses used and consider all the IP addresses from an assignment used if correctly registered in the RIPE Database. Once we have worked out whether these 4 issues are indeed flaws in the policy or not and whether we want them fixed or not, I would like to hear your opinion in what else should be modified in the IPv6 policies. I will then collect all the feedback, probably present it at the next RIPE Meeting, and start to discuss an other approach/policy proposal to achieve what 2013-06 failed to achieve. cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

1 0

New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 03 Mar '14

03 Mar '14

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA in February 2014. 200192-201215 201216-202239 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

ABUSE IP 176.57.210.40 planetadeneg.com
by Илья Полушкин 24 Feb '14

24 Feb '14

Welcome to the IP 176.57.210.40 planetadeneg.com domain is the so-called HYIP project administrator who collects the money and cheating people. Please take steps to block IP 176.57.210.40 work or I will be forced to contact the police. С уважением, Полушкин Илья тел.: 7(916)5800672

2 1

Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA
by Filiz Yilmaz 24 Feb '14

24 Feb '14

Dear Colleagues, NRO NC is asked by the IANA Staff for a clarification on the reading of this policy, Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA, in regards to "when" the first allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool can be made. The Council decided to check further with the communities, hence this mail. The policy document (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-529) states the following: ---- 1.0 Recovered IPv4 Pool …. When one of the RIRs declares it has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory, the Recovered IPv4 pool will be declared active, and IP addresses from the Recovered IPv4 Pool will be allocated as stated in Section 2.0 below. 2.0 Allocation of returned IPv4 address space by the IANA 1. Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active. 2. In each "IPv4 allocation period", each RIR will receive a single “IPv4 allocation unit” from the IANA. 3. An "IPv4 allocation period" is defined as a 6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year ... ---- While clause 1 seems to be pretty clear, it contains a "may" and clauses 2 and 3 together talk about "allocation periods" and that they are the “6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year.” In practice, if the pool is declared active on 1 January and IANA makes the first allocations immediately this would be outside of the allocation period, which begins at the start of March. So mainly the question is about the first allocations from the the Recovered IPv4 pool; a) Should they be made straight away or b) Should IANA wait and make them at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September. In my personal opinion I see no problems with starting straight away (option a above), and then continue the rest in the regularity of the allocation periods as stated in the policy. Would you agree or is your reading towards option b above? Please let us know of your opinions on this list until 23 February 2014. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz as NRO NC Member from RIPE Region

7 8

RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-07 Accepted: Effect on ripe-604
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

Dear colleagues, As announced on the RIPE NCC Services Working Group Mailing List, the policy proposal 2012-07, “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders” has reached consensus. This proposal contained a small amendment to ripe-604, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". 2012-07 replaces section 5.5 of ripe-604, currently: "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA." With "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry System." This change was proposed to ensure that 2012-07 was in alignment with the policies described in ripe-604, “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”. The new RIPE Document is ripe-606 and it is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-606 As an existing RIPE Document was impacted by this policy proposal, we felt it was worth notifying the Address Policy Working Group. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Proposal Accepted (Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text)
by Robert.Guentensperger＠swisscom.com 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

Dear all, I'm unsure now. Is ripe-583 (Provider Aggregatable (PA) Assignment Request Form) still valid? Regarding the new policy-text and the discussion before it's now unclear. At least for me. ;-) Thank you in advance for a clarification. Best regards, Robert Robert Güntensperger Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:36 PM > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Proposal Accepted (Post Depletion > Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of > Obsolete Policy Text) > > > Dear colleagues, > > > Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE > Document ripe-599, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for > the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > The new RIPE Document is called ripe-604 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-604 > > > The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy > proposal, which will require updating many internal and external > procedures and related tools to ensure we continue to provide efficient > service. > We estimate it may take up to three months to make these changes and > fully implement the policy proposal. In the meantime, the current > procedures will remain in effect. The RIPE NCC will send another > announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures > are in place. > > > Thank you to everyone who provided input. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC

4 4

2013-03 Proposal Accepted (Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text)
by Marco Schmidt 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-599, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-604 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-604 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal, which will require updating many internal and external procedures and related tools to ensure we continue to provide efficient service. We estimate it may take up to three months to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. In the meantime, the current procedures will remain in effect. The RIPE NCC will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published
by Gert Doering 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Dear AP WG, On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: [..] > We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any > comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today. No comments were received, thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons opposing it. Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus. We think that all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered - this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow. For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is what the chairs based their decision on. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair support: Mikael Abrahamsson Randy Bush Daniel Stolpe Dimitri I Sidelnikov Andy Davidson Sascha Luck Jan Zorz Bengt Gördén Raluca Andreea Gogiou Roger Jørgensen Richard Hartmann (strong sentiments that this is the last round) Andreas Larsen Jan Ingvoldstad (strong sentiments that this is the last round) Elvis Daniel Velea Nigel Titley (seconding Richard's sentiments) Gerry Demaret Sebastian Wiesinger Lu Heng Sonderegger Olaf Ian Johannesen Fredrik Widell Alexey Ivanov Sandra Brown Donal Cunningham Tassos Chatzithomaoglou Mike Burns George Giannousopoulos Ragnar Anfinsen Milton L Mueller Ronny Boesger Dominik Bay Lutz Donnerhacke support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community Malcolm Hutty (see <52406426.8080405(a)linx.net> for details) neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition): CJ Aronson Nick Hilliard Hans Petter Holen John Curran opposing: McTim "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system is good stewardship. In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies." considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal, and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which currently does not seem to be the case). Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a less controversial message to external parties. So we consider this to be addressed as well. Filiz Yilmaz would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space" This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see what the impact would be. NCC RS stated that the addition of this sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness to make an assignment from it - and that is already there. Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point answered, and go forward. Sylvain Vallerot main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses. considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place, a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left anymore to give all of them what they ask for. David Farmer initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the proposal itself -- 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

5 5