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

2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received). These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several restrictions: - These allocation are not transferrable - LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition - Sub-allocations are not possible - Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 June 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

24 47

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
by Arash Naderpour 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

Hi Jim, Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to discuss how to exploit the existing gaps here in APWG, I was just trying to explain that technical difficulties are not the only reason IPv6 is not deployed everywhere. It should be first be available and possible (from legal point of view) to deploy it which is not yet in all area. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 2:15 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: IPv6 connectivity in Iran > On 12 Jun 2016, at 16:30, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> wrote: > > As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian service providers. > > There is no possibility to have a direct peering with a global carrier and as a result no native IPv6 connectivity yet. there is also no IXP in the country. Well that lack of IPv6 appears to be a major gap in the market and a worthwhile business opportunity with huge growth potential. So is the lack of an in-country IXP. IMO it’s up to the Iranian Internet community to tackle these issues and make the most of these business opporrtunities. It is probably inappropriate for this WG to discuss how to exploit these gaps. They can’t really be helped (or hindered) by RIPE address policy anyway. Mind you if anyone is minded to set up an IXP in Iran, they will have to move quickly if they need/want some IPv4 from the NCC for local interconnect and peering. PS: Apologies for a meaningful and relevant Subject: header.

6 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment
by Arash Naderpour 13 Jun '16

13 Jun '16

The point is that not all countries are the same when it comes to rules , some regulatory or government organizations may force ISPs in some area to stick with IPv4, as they simply don't have IPv6 ready LI platforms. I'm sure that there are some plans to deploy IPv6 in all countries soon or later it would be done (even Iran has a v6 road map), but telling others to go and deploy IPv6 (or it is not difficult to deploy) does not change the fact that there are more limitations out there. anyway, thanks for your thoughtful advises. Regards, Arash P.S even in Australia the biggest service provider (Telstra) is not providing IPv6 service to residential customers as of today, -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016 3:42 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: 'Alexander Koeppe' <Alexander.Koeppe(a)merckgroup.com>; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:39:59AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: > And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can deploy > IPv6, it is simply not available everywhere. > It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility. Work with your regulator to *make* it possible - like the rest of the world has. It might take a while, but "not doing anything and complaining that IPv4 has run out" is not the right approach. (You *should* have started to work with your regulator 10+ years ago, it's not like this is coming as a surprise) 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

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Riccardo Gori 11 Jun '16

11 Jun '16

Hi, although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business processes. A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012. I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market. If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible. To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation. I cannot support this policy regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo(a)wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

19 32

2015-05 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
by Marco Schmidt 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposers decided to withdraw the proposal due to the inability to find an acceptable agreement which satisfied all parties. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

opposition to 2015-04
by Remco van Mook 30 May '16

30 May '16

Dear all, as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware. I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about transfers are removed from other sections of policy. Kind regards, Remco

9 12

ALLOCATED FINAL and M&As
by William Waites 26 May '16

26 May '16

This suggestion is intended to address the problem of abusively opening many LIRs or many companies to make new members to stockpile addresses from the last /8. First, if there are intended to be special rules applying to these addresses, they should have a special status to make it clear. For the sake of argument ALLOCATED FINAL. This doesn't change anything, it just makes things a bit more explicit. Any organisation should be entitled to at most one such FINAL allocation from RIPE (if we go back to multiple LIR accounts, only one of them may get a FINAL block). FINAL allocations are only for use on the Internet, not for internal, non-announced uses: that is a legitimate use case, but don't squander the last of the pool for that. Transfers of FINAL blocks are only allowed if they are demonstrably in use. "In use" means (1) announced in the global BGP tables and (2) with documentation of deployment in a non-trivial topology, i.e. assigning everything in the /22 to a single host so that it answers ICMP packets doesn't fly. Yes, there are still ways to game this, but the bar is much higher. Yes, it means that the NCC has to do more work to check that transfers are legitimate, but that is a necessary cost for dealing with the problem of the bad actors. --- Motivation/disclosure. HUBS is made up of a dozen or so small rural providers mostly in the south of Scotland. We are an LIR and allocate addresses to them on pretty much the same basis as we get them from RIPE. We encourage them to do IPv6 but made an explicit choice not to dictate or interfere in their internal operations. They may use their IPv4 allocations for "CG"-NAT, or assign them to customers, and we offer advice but not more. Another organisation, WHAN, was set up to do this along similar lines on the west coast (and actually to extend the model by making a distributed IXP for their networks to connect to rather than looking like a transit provider). There is some overlap of people (exactly two) but they operate in a different geographical area and the set of member networks is completely disjoint. At some point it is quite possible that these two organistions will merge. That would be extremely and unnecessarily painful if that meant that networks already assigned and in use had to be returned. These organisations are already operating in areas characterised by market failure, on extremely tight budgets largely reliant on volunteers to provide the only option for decent Internet access. The policy that has been mooted of a rigid rule of exactly one final allocation per organisation would be hugely damaging. Best wishes, William Waites Network Engineer HUBS AS60241

1 0

Join the Address Policy WG Discussions Tomorrow
by Marco Schmidt 24 May '16

24 May '16

Dear colleagues, Tomorrow at RIPE 72, the Address Policy Working Group will be discussing the following policy proposals: - 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" - 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" - 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" While no decisions are made during this session, it’s a good opportunity to discuss the proposals and give feedback directly to the proposers. If you can't attend tomorrow’s session in person, you can participate remotely. The following link will provide you with a live webstream and a chat client. https://ripe72.ripe.net/live/main/ The session begins at 07:00 UTC on 25 May 2016. We encourage you to join the discussion if you have an opinion about one of these proposals. The second Address Policy Working Group session begins at 9:00 UTC on the same day and includes a presentation on "Market Concentration in the Transfer of IPv4 Space”, as well as feedback from the RIPE NCC's Registration Services Department. We invite you to tune in to see these presentations as well. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Developments in IPv4 Transfers
by Mirjam Kuehne 24 May '16

24 May '16

Dear colleagues, In May 2015, we looked at IPv4 transfers in the RIPE NCC service region and found signs of an emerging market. Both the number and size of transfers conducted under RIPE Policy showed an upward trend in the years 2013-2014. One year later, we take another look. Did this trend continue? What have been the effects of the inter-RIR transfer policy? Please read on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers?pk_cam… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
by Marco Schmidt 24 May '16

24 May '16

Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 June 2016. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

12 36