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

2008-08 New Policy Proposal (Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders)
by Filiz Yilmaz 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for Provider Aggregatable Address Space Holders A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-08.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

ETNO Contribution on IP Addressing in a Post IPv4 World Reallocation of resources
by Kelaidi Christina 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

Dear colleagues I am forwarding ETNO Position on the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal. ETNO supports this Policy Proposal, but requests for a clarification to be included. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ETNO has considered the new version of the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, submitted for discussion in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. ETNO believes this revised version that provides for additional criteria to demonstrate the need for an LIR to receive IPv4 addresses trough transfer, is significantly improved. Therefore ETNO will support this Policy Proposal. Still there are outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. 1. Introduction ETNO members have carefully reviewed the new version of the RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-08 related to the "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", which proposes to use inter-LIR transfer mechanisms. This new version of the proposal has been examined in light of the principles expressed in the two previous ETNO position papers circulated in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list (CP082 - 2007/10, and EC097 2008/05 publicly available also at www.etno.be, Position Papers 2007/2008). ETNO welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this new version. 2. ETNO analysis and comments The major change between Version 2 and Version 3 of the policy proposal is the requirement for the receiving LIR to have their need evaluated by the RIPE-NCC before a transfer can be completed. ETNO believes that this requirement is necessary in order to avoid speculative behaviours. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but would like to propose for a clarification to be included in the proposal. ETNO suggests that following the text of the proposal: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC", the following text should be inserted: "The transfer should be formally approved by the RIPE-NCC". 3. Outstanding considerations ETNO has outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. It should be mentioned that these considerations do not impact the approval of the current policy proposal. 1. ETNO believes that reclamation by the RIRs of allocated but unused addresses can offer a way to reuse IPv4 blocks of addresses. In the future, what impact will this new policy have on any reclamation activity? Is it possible to reconcile the reclamation activity from historic, legacy space and the procedures for inter-LIR transfer? 2. Since the significant volume of allocated but unused addresses resides in the historic, legacy space and these addresses are generally not maintained by Local Internet Registries, what will be the impact of this policy proposal? In the future will it be a requirement that the donor be an LIR even in the situation where legacy space is being transferred? Such a requirement could be counter productive to reintroduce unused legacy space in the RIR/LIR management. 3. Given the limited scope of the policy, does this proposal have a significant impact on the availability of additional IPv4 addresses prior to exhaustion of the pools of "fresh" IPv4 addresses from IANA? 4. Conclusion ETNO is positive to any flexibility that could provide a limited amount of IPv4 addresses, and can help the transition to IPv6, but believes that this will not solve the broad issue if IPv4 exhaust and should not distract ISPs and operators from finding appropriate and long term solutions to maintaining a stable Internet. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but has requested for a clarification to be included.

2 1

Paul Krugman on bad equilibriums
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

I've just been reading a paper by Paul Krugman who recently won the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. The paper is entitled "Supply, Demand, and English Food" but I think it explains what has gone wrong with IPv6 some 10 years after it was developed. Here's a relevant quotation: But the history of English food suggests that even on so basic a matter as eating, a free-market economy can get trapped for an extended period in a bad equilibrium in which good things are not demanded because they have never been supplied, and are not supplied because not enough people demand them. --Michael Dillon

2 1

2008-05 Discussion Phase extended until 12 November 2008 (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Phase for the proposal 2008-05 has been extended until 12 November 2008. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

1 0

2007-8 discussions
by Milton L Mueller 15 Oct '08

15 Oct '08

Some random reactions to the puzzling statements from transfer opponents > -----Original Message----- Responses Gert Doering: > (If, OTOH, you're right and everbody will go to IPv6 right away, then > I don't see why 2007-08 would do *harm*) Precisely right. If the v6 option is viable and better, then people will use it. V4 transfers are an insurance policy to get us through the transition period, which could be 5 years or 50 years. Responses to Michael Dillon: > Publicly traded companies do not have the luxury of sitting > on their hands and waiting until the IPv4 address crisis hits. > They have to be prepared, and as a result, there will be very > few buyers in a future IPv4 address market. There are two related predictions here. One is that the v6 migration will go smoothly. The other is that there will be no market for v4. Both are empirical predictions, about which you may be right or wrong. Suppose you are right. If so, the availability of IPv4 transfer markets does no harm because no one uses them or needs them. Suppose you are wrong. Then, the need for IPv4 is heightened and prolonged, and we will be very sorry we didn't create a smooth and above-board mechanism for transfers. > Statistically speaking > there will likely be a few companies who did not plan adequately > and who run out in desperation to buy IPv4 addresses. But we > should not be making policies to cater to these few companies. Umm, why not? And how do you _know_ that it is a "few"? > 2007-08 is the first step to treating IP addresss as freehold > assets which can be bought and sold. If RIPE changes the status > of IPv4 addresses, then IPv6 addresses will also become assets > which must be accounted for on the balance sheet. I think that > a court would decide that 2007-08 and any future transfer policies > override the statement on freehold status in the IPv6 policy. I'm afraid this is a completely bogus prediction about the action of courts, made by a non-lawyer, with no specification of which legal system/courts he is talking about, nor the legal grounds upon which such a decision would be based, or what kind of litigation would put the issue into the courts to begin with. I would not venture to make any predictions about courts, but as someone with economics background I can say that the difference between resources that are available at zero price or a flat administrative/membership fee (e.g., v6 addresses) and those that are priced in the market (e.g., v4 addresses in the future) is quite fundamental and I don't see why the pricing of one would affect the valuation of the other or how any court could fail to take that into account. Recall also that this is contractual governance so if RIPE contracts say that one type of address is transferable and another then that's the way things are. The auctioning of mobile spectrum in the U.S. has not forced broadcasters, who got their spectrum for free, to account for their spectrum holdings according to a projected market value. However (in line with the predictions of those who see gray/black markets developing in v4 if no transfers are authorized) it is well known for decades that the value of spectrum is captured when broadcasters sell their station licenses to another company. Oddly, station transmission facilities that cost tens of thousands of dollars, when coupled with a license that costs a small regulatory fee, routinely sell for hundreds of millions. > Internet sites from one of the larger ISPs. The price for IPv6 > addresses is predictable (zero) and the price for the IPv6 service > will also be predictable since it is being sold in a competitive > market. It is highly likely that ISPs will offer IPv6 connectivity at This is just weird. If v4 addresses are sold in a competitive market, you call them "unpredictable." But you call the price of v6 service "predictable" because....it is sold in a competitive market. > a lower price than IPv4 connnectivity because it reduces the pressure > on their legacy IPv4 infrastructure. Sure, they'll sell access to 1/10th of the internet for less than the price of 100% access. What you may not be taking into account is the universal connectivity associated with v4.

6 6

RE:[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by Kelaidi Christina 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

I am annoyed with the e-mails continually being circulated to the RIPE address policy mailing list regarding ETNO participation in the policy process. It is regretful that ETNO processes (driven by the members of ETNO), that relate to the thinking and discussing of issues before they are submitted to a mailing list that makes decisions about policy proposals which impact the future of the internet in the RIPE region, might stir such discussions. It also regretful that the substance behind ETNO's points that have been thought deeply by representatives of ETNO and who believe in the bottom up processes of the RIR internet community is not the focus of the discussion. ETNO members might be companies with large LIRs, but on the other hand ETNO members have felt the impact of processes and policies being imposed top down by regulators and therefore cherish the bottom up processes of the RIPE community. ETNO follows through its members, who are represented by individual experts, RIPE discussions and have actively participated in address policy discussions in the past. In particular ETNO participated in the discussions regarding this proposal because its members wanted to ensure that the issue of the impact of this proposed policy on the internet community as a whole was understood from all aspects; an impact that cannot be clearly understood by those who just type before thinking. I am sorry that I have had to write this e-mail and I hope that I will not have to do so again in the future. Finally, ETNO has considered this new version of this proposal and will post its opinion to the RIPE list separately; having ensured that it has followed the bottom-up processes defined by its members. Christina Kelaidi Chairperson, ETNO Numbering, Addressing and Naming WG

7 6

HA: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Oct '08

09 Oct '08

> > I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the > > matters *here* > > - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals. > > Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for > all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in? > > --Michael Dillon I'm worrying why somebody-1 have to ask somebody-2 to participate in somebody-1's policy process? RIPE maintains the list to get pros and cons and do the policy making process. All members, regardless of their participation in any other organizations, have in the list equal rights to voice. That's the RIPE's rule. And... when in Rome do as the Romans do. ETNO is one of the organizations in the RIPE region, and even not the biggest one I think. If they have something to say - let them say it. (You can't say that ETNO doesn't have the possibility). If they do not want to reveal their internal thoughts - let them do that too. (I think it is the state we have now) Vladislav Potapov Technical Director IIAT, Ltd. e-mail: poty(a)iiat.ru tel: +7 (495) 251-01-64 fax: +7 (495) 250-81-88  <script type="text/javascript" src="http://download.skype.com/share/skypebuttons/js/skypeCheck.js"></sc ript> <a href="skype:p-i-n-o-k-i-o?call"><img src="http://mystatus.skype.com/smallclassic/p-i-n-o-k-i-o" style="border: none;" width="114" height="20" alt="My status" /></a>

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Confirmed
by Axel Pawlik 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

[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 NCC Board of Executives will make the NRO NC appointment. The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the NRO NC from the RIPE NCC service region: - Paolo Bellorini - Remco van Mook - Wilfried Woeber The term of Wilfried Woeber, which began on 1 January 2006, expires on 31 December 2008. The representative appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board for the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2009. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/confirmed-nominations.html The RIPE NCC Executive Board will announce the successful candidate at the RIPE 57 Meeting, held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 26-30 October 2008. 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 The RIPE NCC

1 0

New AS Number block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Alex le Heux 19 Sep '08

19 Sep '08

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the AS Number Block 48128 - 49151 from the IANA in September 2008. You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
by Sascha Luck 17 Sep '08

17 Sep '08

Hi, On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:43:03 +0100, Gert Doering gert@localhost wrote: > Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version > of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase > to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your > opinions now. I support the spirit of this proposal, but I have major issues with imple- mentation. Nick does brush this of as "operational", but that is where the rubber meets the road. Please also note that my concerns are really mostly with the future of PIv6 as PIv4 is really a lost cause in my opinion. At the end of the day my argument is really with barriers, such as fees: I'm not opposed to a recurring fee as such, but it needs to be low enough not to be a significant barrier to entry even to small businesses or pro-bono organisations such as OSS projects or charities. Actually, a case can be made for making the barriers a lot lower for PIv6, if only to speed it on its way to ubiquity ;) I've seen some mention of a "routing slot tax", I think this idea needs to be stepped on. Hard. Now. Besides, whom goes that "tax" to? $VENDOR? After all, everyone with PI space (multihoming assumed) has to carry full tables too, no? And those whose *business* it is to provide transit should surely have calcula- ted upgrades into the price of their service? I don't think that RIPE's func- tion is (or should be) to act as a tax collector for LIRs... I'm aware that the setting of fees is a function of the RIPE NCC and not the community at large, but the process of setting those fees is not transparent to me. OTOH, maybe it is better to leave the setting of fees to others than those who would want to tax the end-users for their incredible cheek in trying to break away from SP lock-in. Another possible barrier is justification. As far as v6 goes there should not be any need for that in the contractual process. IMO, "because I want it" should be all the justification needed for at least the initial PIv6 assignment. Having said all that, I think that keeping track of PI space *is* a good idea and bringing end-users into the RIPE community is an even better one. If the above issues can somehow be addressed, I would support 2007-01. Regards, Sascha Luck SLU3-RIPE

3 2