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

RIPE 73 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 73 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-73 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: Addressing in 2016 (by Geoff Huston)
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Feb '17

08 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, For those who missed Geoff Huston's article about "Addressing in 2016" on the APNIC blog, it is now also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/addressing-in-2016 "Let’s see what has changed in the past 12 months in addressing the Internet, and look at how IP address allocation information can inform us of the changing nature of the network itself." Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition) You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 October 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Matthieu Herrb 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Hi, sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected. My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI allocation would not violate the policy. Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the original proposal and Ondřej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost. In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay completely under his control, even though the systems using them are operated by his clients. This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small scale hosting). RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI space usage is really restricted for small entities. Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not using PI space for this kind of hosting ? Regards, -- Matthieu Herrb

1 0

2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 31 January 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

7 6

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Hi all, I just want to clarify that this version, compared with the initial version and the previous discussions in the list, has only minor grammar/clarifications edits and the main difference is that we have removed the HD-ratio change, to sync it with the actual HD-ration tables being used by the IPv6 policy. As you know, it is required by the PDP, in order to the WG chairs to judge if there is consensus, that you stated (or restate if you already done this in the previous phase), if you agree or not with this version. So please, go ahead, re-read it and provide your inputs to the list. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

New on RIPE Labs: 15,000 LIRs
by Nick Hyrka 28 Dec '16

28 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Now that we've reached 15,000 LIRs, a new article on RIPE Labs looks at the growth of our membership and the impact this will have on the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/15-000-local-internet-registries Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, One of the RIPE 73 RACI fellows, Ioana Livadariu, presented an interesting study about the IPv4 transfer market at the RIPE Meeting in Madrid. She now published this study also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-the-ipv4-transfer-ma… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio) So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can’t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no “normative” issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let’s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi Leo, I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es" <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2