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

Feedback from the WG chairs group on 2007-01
by Gert Doering 21 May '08

21 May '08

Hi APWG folks, we have received feedback from the Working Group Chairs Collective regarding the policy process on 2007-01: --- Dear APWG Chairs, The Working Group Chairs Collective has received your request to check consensus has been reached on policy proposal 2007-01. After reviewing the discussion, we could not reach consensus that significant changes between versions 1 and 2 of the document received sufficient attention within the Review and Last Call periods, and as such the proposal may not have received the appropriate levels of scrutiny. Due to lack of consensus within the group of Working Group Chairs, we ask that the proposal is reconsidered. --- This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing support for the *latest revision* of the proposal. (Please don't start a big discussion now on the outcome - the policy process says that the group of all Working Group Chairs needs to agree that the process has been followed correctly. There were serious concerns, and thus there was no consensus on this - and the only way forward is to re-enter review phase, which we'll do shortly.) As I assume that we'll reach consensus again, work on the related proposals (2006-01 for IPv6 PI etc.) will continue in parallel. regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

4 6

2008-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-02 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer)
by Ana Matic 16 May '08

16 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Name of Proposer Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-01 has been withdrawn. After RIPE 56 the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal due to insufficient support for it. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.html Regards, Ana Matic RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-02 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR)
by Filiz Yilmaz 15 May '08

15 May '08

PDP Number: 2008-02 Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-02 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal RIPE NCC will run a one-time operation to allocate an IPv6 block to every LIR that does not have any existing IPv6 holdings. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-02.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

10 11

IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles - Contribution from ETNO
by Kelaidi Christina 08 May '08

08 May '08

Dear colleagues ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) is representing 40 major companies from 34 European countries, providing electronic communications networks over fixed, mobile or personal communications systems. ETNO's primary purpose is to establish a constructive dialogue between its member companies and actors involved in the development of the European Information Society to the benefit of users. More information on ETNO can be found at: www.etno.be. ETNO has prepared and presented its Common Position regarding the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space to both RIPE and ICANN (CP082 2007/10). This Expert Contribution on "IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles" provides initial thoughts to the questions asked of ETNO with regard to the principle that there marketplace should not be a determination of IPv4 address exhaustion management. ETNO continues to develop its thoughts on this issue. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ETNO Expert Contribution IP Addressing in a post IPv4 World - Principles 1. Introduction The IP addressing community asked ETNO to make more precise and complement its position regarding the Post IPv4 World, specifically with respect to its stated principle of "no markets". That is, the time when IPv4 addresses are no longer available from the Internet's Regional Internet Registries in the way (volume and quality) they are today. It is now well-understood that the globally available pool of IPv4 addresses will be depleted at some future point. For the purposes of this paper ETNO uses the timeframe of 2010-2012. ETNO has previously urged the community to adopt a basic set of principles guiding policy development, allocation and processes regarding IP addressing in that context and that remains an important issue for ETNO. ETNO's members also feel strongly about the IP addressing environment in the period after the remaining free pool is allocated from the five RIRs. This paper identifies some assumptions regarding that environment and establishes some principles (based on those assumptions) for management of the IPv4 address space in the period following exhaustion of the free pool. In particular, it urges that due emphasis is placed on IPv6 implementation, and that fairness and transparency in any activities relating to IPv4 addresses which seek to extend the availability of IPv4 addresses is of paramount importance. 2. Assumptions ETNO asserts that the following statements are fundamental to understanding the IPv4 addressing environment in the next ten years. * The available free pool of "allocatable" IPv4 addresses will run out - quite likely by 2012. * The existing IPv4 network will continue to operate for many decades to come. * There will still be demand for IPv4 addresses. * After the available pool of IPv4 addresses is exhausted, needs (even limited) will continue to appear that are provided with other options (e.g. the widespread deployment of NAT -- even if this could lead to extra costs and impact on the development of some services). * The only long-term solution to the "unavailability" of IPv4 addresses is the widespread adoption and deployment of IPv6 infrastructure, transport and client services. 3. ETNO Principles Underpinning any future activity with regard to the use and management of IPv4 addresses is the fact that the stability of the Internet must be maintained. In support of the above statement, and the previously stated assumptions, ETNO believes that the fundamental principles that should apply in a post-IPv4 world are fairness in access, transparency in management and that there must be no impact on existing operations and current allocations. 3.1 Identification of Legitimate Use A global mechanism for asserting the right to allocate, use and announce address blocks in the public Internet. A fundamental feature of a stable Internet in post 2012 is to be able to identify those parties who have genuine rights of use over IPv4 address prefixes. These rights of use need to be globally identified and could include the rights to allocate, use and advertise routes associated with IPv4 address prefixes. ETNO believes that a common, global approach to certifying the authentic allocation of address blocks should be adopted by the existing RIRs. Regional approaches to address block certification will be unworkable. Multiple, inconsistent approaches to address block certification would require the Internet's infrastructure to adopt more mechanisms than necessary to ensure that routing table entries were genuine and authentic. Having multiple approaches would result in unacceptable overhead in the routing infrastructure for the Internet. A global approach must be in place long before the period in which IPv4 depletion makes it significantly difficult to get address blocks from the RIRs. 3.2 Transparency in management Decisions on management (allocations and assignments must be public and transparent). To engender confidence and security post 2012 any decision regarding allocation or assignment must be done in a transparent, public way, and be consistent with policies enacted through the bottom-up processes in the RIRs. This transparency of this activity must apply globally. Any deficiencies in such policies need to be identified and action taken to ensure that they are harmonised and resolved by 2012. 3.3 Fair and Neutral Reuse Where IPv4 addresses are recovered from historic, experimental or IANA-reserved allocations, there needs to be a globally synchronized "recycling" of those blocks for Post-IPv4 allocation. Also, RIRs are further encouraged to more strictly reclaim allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. ETNO believes in a two tiered approach when it comes to IPv4 address recovery: a global IANA oriented process and regional RIR oriented processes. ETNO believes that IPv4 address space may be recovered through the examination of historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations. In these cases the redistribution of this address space must be fair, neutral and global. Global fairness requires that the IPv4 addresses recovered in this way are available to all users globally based on the existing justification models for allocation from IANA to RIRs. In particular, just as IANA and RIRs announce allocation of address blocks to the RIRs, so should the recovery, for future use, of address blocks be advertised. Furthermore, ETNO would like to encourage the RIRs to put still greater effort in to the reclaiming of allocated, but unused IPv4 address space. Such unused address space could e.g. result from LIRs that ceased to exist - or do not respond to any inquiries by the RIR any longer at least - or from mergers between LIRs. RIRs are also invited to seriously consider the incentives that could be provided to operating LIRs to consider returning unused address space by e.g. a rebate on the membership fees. IPv4 address space reclaimed by such means is to be put back into the allocation pool of the respective RIR to be reallocated later, according to its regular allocation policies. ETNO believes that there is a lower limit to prefix length for such recovery of IPv4 address space, though. IANA and the RIRs should make no attempt to recover for future use historic, experimental and IANA-reserved allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for RIRs. Likewise, RIRs - in collaboration with LIRs - should make no attempt to recover (parts of) allocations where the prefix length of the allocated space is longer than the minimum allocation size for LIRs. 3.4 Self-Regulation of the Post-IPv4 Environment The allocation and of IPv4 addresses should - at all times - be guided and regulated by the bottom-up processes in place in the existing Regional Internet Registries. In a post 2012 environment, ETNO believes that the current bottom up stakeholder approach to manage the use of IPv4 public addresses should be maintained. No intervention is needed or desired by the industries who utilize and manage IPv4 addresses. This includes regional and sovereign entities as well as those treaty organizations or economic coalitions who might hope to affect IPv4 utilization for local or regional advantage - regardless of historical circumstance. 3.5 No Connection between IPv4 and IPv6 The environment for the allocation of IPv6 addressing must remain separate from the environment that manages the Post-IPv4 World. While there can be no doubt that IANA and the RIRs will continue to play an important role in both IPv4 and IPv6 in the future, ETNO believes that the environments are separate and distinguishable. In particular, decisions and policies regarding the allocation of IPv4 addresses to an organization, provider or user should not affect - in any material way - their eligibility for IPv6 address space. Similarly, an organization with IPv6 address space in the Post-IPv4 World has no inherent right to IPv4 address space - except under the existing, bottom-up processes that already guide IPv4 allocations to organizations and LIRs globally. ETNO has identified the following aspects that need to be factored into any discussion. 4. Post 2012 Environment Two broad options that might exist in the post 2012 IPv4 environment that could assist in extending the continued assignment of IPv4 addresses have been identified , namely * reclamation and reissue, and * transfer. In discussing each of the options, ETNO has considered the implications on a number of different levels. These include the entities involved such as the Local Internet registries, Regional Internet Registries etc, the legal framework, both nationally and regionally, and the interaction that may exist between these levels. Reclamation/Release and Reissue Description Reclamation/Release and reissue requires proactive action to be undertaken, either by the RIRs or by LIRs. Independent of who undertakes the action, reclamation is based upon the identification of unused IPv4 address space returning to the RIR. If proactive action is undertaken by the RIRs, then it would be reclamation, and if the action was taken by the LIRs it would be release. No assumption is made as to what size of block may be reclaimed, other then to say it is likely to be smaller then that originally allocated, and therefore no assumption regarding the value of the size reclaimed is made. Issues For the RIRs to be proactive and to treat all allocations in an equitable manner a global coordinated and consistent approach is required. It is clear that there have been variances in approaches to reclamation, across the five RIRs, in both recent and in legacy allocations. Such an approach will need for the RIRs and their membership to decide on a higher priority than today on that activity. For the LIRs, reclamation will mean allowing some form of auditing to occur, either directly with the RIR perhaps undertaking an audit of the LIR. In either case the policies applied to already allocated addresses must remain stable. There should be recognition that not all address space that remains unassigned or unannounced is free for return to the RIR. Regarding the legacy space there is an unresolved issue concerning the legal basis on which the RIRs could take action to recover unused IP addresses without any contractual arrangement with the holders. Transfer Description With the term transfer we refer to the transfer of an IPv4 address block from one entity to another under contractual agreement between the two of them. Such an entity can be both, an LIR or an address space assignee, effectively creating four potential "classes" of transfers: - From one LIR to another - From one assignee to another - From an assignee to an LIR - From an LIR to an assignee of another LIR Any such assignee could already have obtained address space from "its" LIR according to the assignment policies, or might become an entirely new assignee as a result of the transfer. Issues Future arrangements to meet on-going demand ETNO believes that the existence of transfer would be a first step to the creation of a market. This first would be a fundamental change to the manner in which IPv4 addresses are currently managed. In order to consider the impact of the creation of market for IPv4 addresses the following issues should be considered: - RIRs have been authorised to provide Internet Number resources as a result of earlier decisions and the internet community has made substantial effort to ensure appropriate bottom-up processes that are open, transparent and equitable. This approach must be maintained. - Other Internet governance organisations (IETF, ICANN) in collaboration with RIRs, ensure the robustness, security and stability of the Internet, through bottom-up processes that involve all the community. - According to the Internet Best Current Practice RFC 2008 Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing it is the Internet service environment and its continued operation which gives an IP address its intrinsic value. Address allocation and management policies for IP addresses that assume unrestricted address ownership have an extremely negative impact on the scalability of the Internet routing system and are almost certain to exhaust the scalability of the Internet routing system well before the ultimate exhaustion of the IPv4 address space. The recommendation is to formally add the "address lending" policy to the set of address allocation policies of the Public Internet. It is these successful bottom-up processes that keep the Internet community from being engaged in discussions regarding intervention or new models of governmental control and therefore it is the Internet community that should take all the appropriate measures in order to adhere to the current governance model. Facilitating a market based on the principle that attaches an intrinsic "value" to an IP address would engage competition authorities, policymakers and will raise legal issues. This should be carefully considered before introducing policies that will facilitate a market. Moreover, IP addresses are allocated according to RFC 2050 Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines "Initial allocation will not be based on any current or future routing restrictions but on demonstrated requirements."... "All IP address requests are subject to audit and verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional registry. If any assignment is found to be based on false information, the registry may invalidate the request and return the assigned addresses back to the pool of free addresses for later assignment". Based on the above principle RIPE assigns addresses based on clearly defined criteria . There are also rules for the transfer of custodianship in all RIRs. Therefore if one entity sells an IP address to another, which is completely different than existing transfer of custodianship procedures, this directly implies that the assignment made is based on information that is not valid, since the entity that is selling the IP address did not make use for a specific purpose or the purpose no longer exists. Therefore according to existing policy principles this IP address space should be returned. One could also possibly argue that a transfer is very similar to a "reclamation/release and reissue" scheme - in the latter case the gaining LIR or assignee is "just" not yet known, but still to be determined by the usual allocation and assignment policies. However, this predetermination in the case of a transfer bears the possibility that the gaining LIR or assignee is allowed to jump the queue of other LIRs (and assignees "behind" them) waiting to get a new allocation - and by such would entirely distort the well established "first come, first served and based on needs" scheme. Ultimately as the worst case, the RIRs might even lose their capability to enforce the allocation and assignment policies in case the assumption that policies will always be correctly applied by all parties becomes null and void. Based on the above considerations, ETNO has some strong concerns regarding the possible impacts of the introduction of a transfer option or an open market option. This does not mean that ETNO fails to recognise the possibility that future transactions that will involve transfers of IP addresses between entities for profit. It means that internet community will need to carefully consider the implications of assisting such a process, taking as a starting point that the Internet community wants to preserve the current internet governance bottom-up processes. If a market emerges, future developments relating to IPv4 addresses must not undermine the viability of the Internet. Evolution ETNO believes that ensuring the continued availability of IPv4 addresses needs to exist as a global approach. As part of the global approach that would need to exist, it is imperative that the coherence of the internet is maintained. Underpinning the discussions is the principle that the viability is a major cornerstone that needs to be considered in discussing the options that exist.

1 0

Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 04 May '08

04 May '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza(a)gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > > 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do > > something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" > > dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) > > > > For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, > instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something > separate... Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way. > 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the > > "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do > > it? If > > an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than > > a > > RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in > > the > > database! > > > > You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from > enterprises, is that it? No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".) > 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using > > it then we will loose it soon. > > > > We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP... It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people... > 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine > > for > > the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). > > > > > 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible > > different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a > > prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) > > users, > > then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using > > different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. > > Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool! > Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: > > > > > > > > Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, > > AS-local > > address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of > > autonomous Systems might share > > > > even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) > > > > > > > > I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a > > collaborative > > effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not > > trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow > > creation of a common address pool! > > > > > > > > It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL > > users > > if we have a > > > > big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. > > > > > > > > Please read also my proposals: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… > > > > > > > > and my presentation: ( > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Geza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… Many thanks for your attention, Geza

1 0

Joking follow-up
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes…) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well – and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke…) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C

6 7

Agenda for RIPE 56 - 1st draft
by Gert Doering 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the agenda for the RIPE address policy WG meeting at the upcoming RIPE meeting in Berlin. The APWG meeting will take place Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 and Thursday, 09:00-10:30. If there is anything else you want to see on the agenda, please let me/us know! In the plenary section on Tuesday morning, we will have a presentation from Filiz Yilmaz on ongoing policy work in other regions, so we know what "they" are working on, and can try to learn from it. (Thanks!) The exact time lines depend a bit on the outcome of the policy proposals currently (and soon to be) in "last call". regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ----------------------- snip ---------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 A. Administrative Matters 5 min (selecting a scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Overview over concluded protocols 10 min B.1 2007-07 - End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.2 2007-06 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... withdrawn, replaced by 2008-03 B.3 2005-08 - Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment an Utilisatio ... (change of /48 to "LIR's choice", /56, and HD-Ratio) accepted B.4 2007-03 - IPv4 Countdown Policy withdrawn, replaced by 2007-06/2007-07, replaced by 2008-03 B.5 2007-04 - IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs accepted in RIPE region (short feedback from ICANN/AC on current global status) C. New Proposals since RIPE 55, just presentation, no discussion yet 15 min C.1 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder C.2 2008-02 - Assigning IPv6 PA to Every LIR C.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space (IPv4 countdown policy, revisited) [C.4 2008-* - if anything else appears in the meantime] D. "Contracts and Certification session" D.1 2007-01 - wrap up, next steps, comments from the NCC board D.2 report from the Certification Authority (CA) TF - update on operational status [Nigel Titley] 15min - life certification demo 20min - discussion: proposal for initial certifications 10min D.3 new policy proposal from the CA TF, based on discussion Thursday, 09:00-11:30 E. Restart PI discussions (if we have consensus on 2007-01) E.1 2006-01 - Provider Independent IPv6 Assignment for End User Organizations E.2 2006-05 - PI Assignment Size E.3 2008-01 - Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder F. "End of IPv4" session - generic discussion on how to proceed F.1 2007-08 - Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources ("The Market" proposal) F.3 2007-09 - Cooperative distribution of the end of the IPv4 free pool (Tony Hain's proposal) F.3 2008-03 - Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 ... (/8 reservations to RIRs) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 1

2008-01 Review Period extended until 16 May 2008 (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
by Filiz Yilmaz 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

PDP Number: 2008-01 Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2008-01 has been extended until 16 May 2008. With the acceptance of this proposal, the RIPE NCC will conduct a one-time operation to assign a /56 IPv6 PI prefix to all End Users with an IPv4 assignment registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-01.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

7 10