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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Martin Huněk 23 Sep '17

23 Sep '17

Hello, I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify /22. So I think that there should not be any need for justification. Simply because it would be one more meaningless paper, nothing more. Secondly, for me having more specific routes than /24 doesn't seems seem as the right solution for IPv4. More specific routes means more routes in table, so more resources spent on legacy protocol. As for the core of the proposal - droping maximal allocation size from /22 to /24: I don't think that keeping PA pool longer than needed is good for future of an Internet. Maybe it would be better to transfer more space in PI IX pool, drop the restrictions on that pool which prevents to use it for CGN and let the PA space run flat. Long story short, I'm aginst the 2017-03 policy as it is written right now. Best Regards, Martin Hunek Dne pátek 22. září 2017 10:09:28 CEST, Daniel Suchy napsal(a): > Hello, > /24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also > /24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any > problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support > this idea. > > But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to /22 > maximum, as was decided in the past) LIRs eligible for allocation, if > LIR properly documents his request. > > From my own practice there're some LIR, where /24 is sufficient and they > just become LIRs because there's no other real option to get independent > addresses (old "PI") and with /22 we're just wasting limited resource. > But there're also LIRs, where /22 will actively used. > > I don't see any problems in terms of RFC 2050 mentioned here and memory > contraints, providers had to upgrade their routers in meantime anyway > (at least due to IPv6 adoption). Fragmentation up to /24 is long-term > reality and we had to deal with it anyway. > > With regards, > Daniel > > On 09/21/2017 01:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, > > aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for > > discussion. > > > > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the > > RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not > > received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/ > > > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback > > to the proposer. > > > > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of > > the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal. > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 20 October 2017. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Marco Schmidt > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
by Aleksey Bulgakov 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

Hi. I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger. It helps to go to IPv6 and the problem of IPv4 is resolved automatically. I don't really understand why the NCC tries to prolong the life of the dead patient by means of restrictions such as 2015-01, 2017-03 and others. It seems the NCC wants to earn money due to the IPs become more expensive. So I oppose this proposal. 22 Сен 2017 г. 7:50 пользователь "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> написал: On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote: At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free >> pool in RIPE's hands? >> > > There’s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. > There is also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about- ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go? To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

5 4

2017-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
by Marco Schmidt 13 Sep '17

13 Sep '17

Dear colleagues, The policy proposal 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates" has been withdrawn. The proposal is archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer didn't see enough community support, especially from Legacy Resource Holders as the parties that would be most affected. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

RIPE 74 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 15 Aug '17

15 Aug '17

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 74 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-74 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Trends in RIPE NCC Service Region IPv4 Transfers
by Mirjam Kuehne 29 Jun '17

29 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, With only a few months left until the fifth anniversary of RIPE NCC reaching the last unallocated /8 of IPv4 space, we look at developments in transfers in, to and from the RIPE NCC service region. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/trends-in-ipv4-transfers Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

2 1

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2015-04 "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
by Laurens Hoogendoorn 15 Jun '17

15 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented RIPE Policy Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies". In accordance with the new policy, the 24-month transfer restriction applies to all scarce resources (IPv4 and 16-bit ASNs). The restriction also applies if the resource was received due to a change in the organisation’s business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). The RIPE NCC publishes statistics on transfers that take place. From now on, the statistics will include information that indicates the kind of transfer (whether it is a transfer under policy or it is due to a merger/acquisition). Please note that: - All IPv4 and 16-bit ASN transfer requests received by the RIPE NCC after this announcement will be evaluated under the new policy - The evaluation of transfer requests received before this announcement, if completed within a reasonable time, will fall under the previous policy The main webpage on transfers can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tra… The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 The RIPE Document, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/transfer-policies -- Kind regards, Laurens Hoogendoorn RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

clarification on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (ripe-682) Section 2.0
by Peter Hessler 23 May '17

23 May '17

Hi All https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-ri… I saw this restriction: """ Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. Provider Independent resources may be transferred to: * A RIPE NCC member; or * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member in accordance with the RIPE Policy, """ Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI). Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the existing PI rules be welcome? -peter

3 3

recantation
by Randy Bush 11 May '17

11 May '17

at yesterday's address policy statement, i was quite incorrect when i said that updated or obsoleted rfcs were marked. they are not. the index entry is marked. the rfcB obsoliting rfcA is marked as such. but rfcA is not marked as modified. apologies. randy

1 0

2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)
by Marco Schmidt 05 May '17

05 May '17

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all changes to the holdership of legacy resources in the existing transfer statistics. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-01 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 24 May 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

11 22

APWG meeting agenda 0.2
by Gert Doering 26 Apr '17

26 Apr '17

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a second draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Budapest in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 10, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 10, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. Depending on the amount of "not yet known" things to show up on the agenda, we might only need one time slot. In which case, we can all join the Connect WG for a change :-) Notable changes in the second version: Item "E" added (this was prompted by a reference to an updated-behind-our-back RFC in the AS number policy), and due to "more policy proposals", item "F" moved to second slot. HEADS UP: side room. regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 - main room ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection 10 min - longest-serving chair (Gert Döring) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE 72 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 25 min (+ discussion with the group) E. outdated references in policy documents - Marco Schmidt 15 min (+ discussion with the group) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 - side room (HEADS UP!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F. Discussion of open policy proposals 40 min 2016-04 IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification Maximilian Wilhelm 2017-01 Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates Elvis Daniel Velea Y. Open Policy Hour 5 min The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity. Z. AOB Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

1 0