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

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

>> Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6. >...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being >talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and >there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with >respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4. It is best to clarify what resource we want to conserve. I don't think there is any need to conserve IPv4 addresses any more. Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years. We also have a replacement protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia and in Europe. However, we might still want to conserve the number of entries in the global routing table because of the impact on router memory, router CPU and the time required to reload a full view of the Internet when a router is restarted. If we refuse to give DENIC a /24 from the recovered "Class C" swamp space we would be saving a small amount of IPv4 address space but we might not save any global routing table entries... --Michael Dillon

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 08 Jan '04

08 Jan '04

>That's why I'm in favour to have a policy that permits allocations for >specific, well-defined Anycast services. That allocations would come >from a well-known block, so people would know to not filter /24s from >there (and so on). I agree that there should be a specific and well-defined policy. But I think that this policy does not need to be restricted to anycast services. It is a good thing to allocate only /24s and not any longer prefixes like /32 because there is no shortage of IPv4 address space and no need to conserve this space so severely. And I think that the well-known block used for this type of allocation should come from the old "Class C" swamp space. We have recovered lots of unused addresses from this area and we should begin to allocate them for special purposes which can benefit a large part of the community. --Michael Dillon

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

>On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:15:11PM +0100, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote: >> Request For An IPv4/IPv6 Policy Allowing Assignments >> For Network Critical Infrastructure >I strictly oppose anything that has "Assignments For Network Critical >Infrastructure" in its title. I think you are wrong here. The important part of this proposal is the critical infrastructure. Anycast is a technical solution and it can be used for unimportant things as well. >NB: the other 3 RIR's "critical infrastructure" policies are just broken >by design - what's special about ARIN's or ICANN's network, as opposed to >the network that runs google.com? I'd say Google is much more critical >to the average network user... DNS services are critical infrastructure, especially top level domain services. You might argue that it would be better for all top level domains to pool their resources and share the same anycast architecture and I would probably agree with you. But I believe that the .de DNS service is far more important than Google's search engine because if the .de service is unavailable then no-one will be able to resolve google.de so the search engine will become unreachable. I agree that the other RIR policies may not be a good example for RIPE to follow. Sometimes RIPE can do things better. Personally I would rather have seen DENIC propose a simple policy text and then explain why. That might be easier to discuss than a request for someone else to write the policy text. Suggestion... RIPE will allocate /24 blocks from the IPv4 address range that was once called "Class C" address space for use by services that are part of the Internet's critical infrastructure. These blocks are for services that will exist for the forseeable future, are used freely by many organizations, and are likely to outlive the lifetime of the organization currently operating the service. I think that .de nameservice meets this criteria. The .de DNS will exist forever, anybody can use it without subscribing or registering, and if DENIC ceased to exist, some other organization would take over the responsibility of hosting .de. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
by Michel Py 07 Jan '04

07 Jan '04

> Gert Doering wrote: > (To repeat myself: I have no doubts that all these > instutitions are very important for the well-being > of the network. But IP being what it is, their > network infrastructure is "just any other network"). Although the wording is a little strong, I would second this. The issue here is, then why not google, then why not me? Michel.

1 0

Change of Minumum IPv4 Allocation Size
by Filiz Yilmaz 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The final date for comments on the "Last Call" on the proposal to change the minimum IPv4 allocation size to /21 ended on 22 December 2003. There were no comments made therefore we will implement this policy change on 1 January 2004. Please note that there will be two changes. Firstly, the minimum IPv4 allocation size is /21. Secondly, it is no longer required to demonstrate efficient utilisation of a /22. Our supporting documentation and software will be updated as soon as possible. Please note that /21 allocations will only come from the 83.0.0.0/8 and 84.0.0.0/8 blocks. A full listing of the "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Snr. Hostmaster RIPE NCC

1 0

FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size
by Gert Doering 23 Dec '03

23 Dec '03

Hi, this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, and we had it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. PROPOSAL: * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from a /20, as of today, to a /21. (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial allocation, they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" The motivation for that is that under the current policy, startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for their own PA again. The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table (where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to fill the initial /21. A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in RIPE land today. A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57785 (56883) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

4 6

IANA Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
by Axel Pawlik 15 Dec '03

15 Dec '03

Dear Colleagues, The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have been working together with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) on a policy for the allocation of IPv4 address space to the RIRs. The proposed policy was presented to the RIPE Address Policy Working Group at RIPE 46 in September. The presentation can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-46/presentations/ripe46-ap-iana-rir/ Following discussion in all four RIR regions, this policy proposal and discussion results will be forwarded to the ICANN ASO Address Council for review and submission to the ICANN Board. It is considered a global policy proposal. Please review the document "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policies for Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries". The document can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html Comments on this proposal should be sent to this list. The review period is six weeks and will end on 16 November. A webcast recording of the entire RIPE Address Policy Working Group session can be found at: mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-1a.wmv mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripe46/ap-2a.wmv Kind regards, Axel

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

>IP addresses are clearly quite valuable, especially PI ones, not to mention >the "allocated unspecified" ones, for obvious reasons. However, the community >should definately do everything in it's power to make sure IP addresses are >not, under any circumstances, sold. We should also note that any value which may be attached to IPv4 addresses today will likely be significantly diluted as IPv6 is more widely deployed. Anyone who thinks that they will gain some advantage by paying for IPv4 addresses will be greatly disappointed when that advantage evaporates because of IPv6. Scarcity often increases the value of something so we should be quite clear that IPv6 addresses will be so abundant that any intrinsic scarcity value in IP addresses will disappear. I think that this point is important enough to be incorporated in a document regarding IPv4 addresses as a warning. There are already commercial IPv6 services available in Europe as well as several production networks used internally by research and development consortia. There is no doubt that IPv6 has matured and that the growth in the deployment of IPv6 will continue. All of this tends to reduce the pressure on the IPv4 address space and therefore reduces any intrinsic value of an IPv4 address. --Michael Dillon

2 1

RE: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by Mike Norris 05 Dec '03

05 Dec '03

> why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you Quote from ripe-152: "By themselves, these resources have no intrinsic value; their worth is only realised in conjunction with the provision of Internet access. Thus, while registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private. " See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-152.html> for the full document. Regards. Mike Norris

5 4

Fwd: selling ip:s? (kf)
by MEUZAK6＠aol.com 03 Dec '03

03 Dec '03

why are we not allowed to sell ip address? i dont understand...please explain...thank you

1 0