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

IGF session on IP address policy
by Milton L Mueller 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there will be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring a global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself and Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session discussion of the topic the next day. The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series of panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured, multi-stakeholder deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will test the extent to which the various stakeholders interested in that issue can come to agreement on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4 number resources. The five policy issues we will discuss are: the role of needs assessment in market trades; the status of legacy number block holders; the accuracy of post-transaction records; aggregation policies market power For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise position formulated on the spot. The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will facilitate remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US Eastern time, and 3 hours ahead of Continental European time. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

1 0

Seen this?: (Was: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1)
by Ondřej Surý 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

Hi, seems like it has begun... :( (I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...) I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected. Regards, Ondrej Sury Begin forwarded message: > From: "IP Brokerage" <info@anonymized-don't-want-to-spread-contact-me-offlist-if-you-need-original> > Subject: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1 > Date: 17. října 2012 18:52:24 GMT+02:00 > Reply-To: info@xxx > > Confidential For: XXXXXXXXX > > We are contacting you to participate in a bidding process for the lease or potential sale of IPv4 address space. IPv4 is transitioning and will soon be replaced by IPv6. We encourage you to take this opportunity to monetize your IPv4 assets before they become obsolete. > > RxxxMxxxxx_IP is currently seeking to enter into direct lease agreements for large netblocks of currently unused IP space. We pay market lease rates via wire transfer and are accustomed to closing transactions quickly. Our lease of your IP space will be governed by a customary Service Level Agreement (SLA) and no abusive practices will be permitted or tolerated. References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request. > > Leasing your excess IPv4 space allows you to generate income, while retaining ownership of your IPv4 allocations for future use or ultimate sale. > > If your organization (XXXXXXXX) has an underperforming IPv4 subnet, such as -1.-1.-1.-1 or some other range of any size, and you are interested in monetizing this asset immediately, for any duration or terms, please contact me or complete the RFP (request for proposal) questionnaire below and return it to my attention at info@xxxxxx. > > Thank you for your participation in our RFP process, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > I am interested in monetizing my IPv4 Assets: > > > Company Name: > Size or number of IPs available for lease: > Identify Range (CIDR): > email: > Phone number: > Proposed start date for lease: > > > RxxxMxxxx_IP is also actively engaged in buying and selling IP address space. Please let us know if this is of interest to you as well. > > John Blank > Business Development > RxxxMxxxxx_IP > Of . xxx.xxx.xxx > Sk . xxxxxx > -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Sergey Myasoedov 18 Oct '12

18 Oct '12

I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity. There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough. Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote: SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 >>PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*. -- Sergey

3 2

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Hello, We very specialised company. We kind in niche in Russia. As I calculated we are 2-nd by size LIR by count of sponsored PI-networks, for example. So, it’s only small number of companies need this changes? > >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide > this Ps. They will give us this work. > Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? While main business in telecom. And they wont sell IPs. Just ask LIRs - who can provide IPs? I’ve already answered your last question. According to the initial provisions: if a LIR doesn’t have people, or salespersons, or wishes, or time, or everything else to distribute IPs –then I’m in doubt the company will got the abovementioned things to bother to suballocate. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! No, not enought. IPs will be reselled, but without registration in RIPE. Would you like it? I think better give instrument for comunity for simple distribution IPv4. In other cases you can forget about whois. If it will be impossible to register changes - then you will see old information. It is possible to register changes. It will be possible to register changes. Reselling without registering to RIPE would led to dealing with all network problems by registered company, which is not very productive in the modern black-and-white listing world. By the way – now (I know that very well) there are several companies that already use this cheating (for several reasons) and they did this thing for several years to now even at that time (when they began) there was no IP exhaustion. And what? The RIR-LIR-EU system is here and works well. >> … If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Ok. But what about current transfers? They are “needs based” and you pay for service (mostly once). Regards, Vladislav

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by James Blessing 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: > You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single downstream > Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a /24. > This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that > allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a > downstream network operator. Okay So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further sub-allocations? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

12 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

>> I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? > We LIR. We need sub-allocation to allocate IP-networks to our clients (ISP). You are not the only LIR! >>You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? >We specialised on IPs. Just one of the best service regards IP addresses. Fast and good price. This is reason why ISP goes to us and work with us. I’m not sure that you are right. My company is also a LIR and serve our customers without problems. In Russia there a a lot of LIRs and I don’t think you are the only “right” and “kind” company on the market. >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide this IPs. They will give us this work. Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? >>If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. >What special do you see in using IP space by another LIR? I just see in nearest future. While people have demand and we can make rules and regulate it. Or think that market not exist and we will see what happend... Because LIR is not for using – it is for distributing! Market, market… I’m not afraid of market – we are living in market all life. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! >> I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC > >made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are > >not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least > >in Russia)! >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. URL: http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ <http://www.leadertelecom.nl/> - IP- addresses URL: http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl <http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl> - WildCard SSL certificates 15.10.2012 14:31 - написал(а): Dear Alexey, I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least in Russia)! Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:56 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is not just "may". It is real case. Permanenent transfer cost 10USD per 1 IP. It is too high. We won't pay this money. We ready pay monthly. It this case the best way to give legal IPs for us - make "sub allocation". But we have restricion in policy - another LIR can sub-allocate only /20 every twelve months. This is too small size. While we need assign now in several times more. And as soon as we will assign this space - we will receive additional requests, but the same supplier by current policy can't give us additional networks while he can do it only one time in twelve months. About "may" - it was an example when can be sub-allocated all space. While Gert Doering wrote about this case. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 14:51 - написал(а): And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl <mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl> ] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Randy Bush 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

>> i have given multi-year loans, admittedly not transfers as they did not >> exist at the time, a number of times. i have space out on loan now. > > What records did you use for that? I mean "Assigned PA", > "Sub-allocated PA", etc? And how many IPs? as the space is not in the ripe region, with 39 flavors of integers, your question is not answerable. randy

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Review Phase for this document has ended. After the feedback received, the Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to move into the Last Call period for comments. This period will last until 26 October 2012. We encourage you to read this merged version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 26 October 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Sander Steffann 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Hi, > Lets check RIPE-530: > > > Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a > > permanent or non-permanent basis. > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of > > the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. > > For temporary transfer we make 2 transfers: 1. from LIR A to LIR B. .... 2. Form LIR B to LIR A (back). While address space may not transfer it on within 24 months, so we can't transfer back earlier than in 2 years. Ah, there is the misunderstanding. Giving back the address space is not a separate transfer. It's part of the original (temporary) transfer. This rule is only to prevent people from selling addresses on. - Sander

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

6 11