2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492) Summary of Proposal: This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines. The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC. Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone. Policy Text: a. Old text Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492. b. New policy text Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492: -- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken. All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1! The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. -- a. Arguments supporting the proposal Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all. This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above). Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.
Hi, On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:36:10PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492)
There was a small editing mistake here, the "Number:" should be 2010-02, and the timelines are a bit shorter than the PDP demands. But besides that, this is obviously address policy related matter, and I've seen worse proposals. So we, the APWG chairs, are now going to conspire in some well-documented and open place with the RIPE NCC, on whether we can accept this as a formal proposal for the address polic working group (if we come to the conclusion that we cannot take it, I'm sure the Secret WG would be happy to have it). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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
On 01/04/2010 13:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly
The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are.
Why 640, surely an allocation on a bit boundry would be more suitable? The fact that many people get stuck with CIDR addressing I would like to see that the first allocation be made on the /24 boundry. Organisations required a second (or maybe even a third) could always apply for one *after* all the other existing LIRs have completed their requests. J -- James Blessing http://www.despres.co.uk/ 07989 039 476 Superbia in Proelio
James Blessing wrote:
Why 640
I had the same question. But I think I found the answer: 640 = 512+128 = 5*/25 = 5*/(5*5). The magic number 5 is between 4 an 6. It suggests that it is more than IPv4, but it is not IPv6 yet. Janos
James Blessing wrote:
Why 640
I had the same question. But I think I found the answer: 640 = 512+128 = 5*/25 = 5*/(5*5). The magic number 5 is between 4 an 6. It suggests that it is more than IPv4, but it is not IPv6 yet. Janos (sorry for possible duplicates, I first posted from the wrong e-mail address)
May be because of some kind of "640kbytes" limitation? On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM, James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/04/2010 13:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Number: 2010-01
Why 640, J
--
James Blessing http://www.despres.co.uk/ 07989 039 476 Superbia in Proelio
-- Regards, Gennady Abramov
Nick, this proposal is far-reaching and deserves the fullest consideration by the WG. I trust there will be plenty of time to discuss it at RIPE60 before it passes to the other RIRs because of its global implications. [Perhaps an ad-hoc study group is needed to thoroughly research this topic?] However I feel implementation of this policy proposal will have to wait until the NCC has been able to support RFC1437.
Personally, I am STILL waiting for RFC1776 support as well; I find both the 32b and 128b constraints to be unacceptably small for use as address fields. 1696B is far more appropriate ... On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 08:54, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Nick, this proposal is far-reaching and deserves the fullest consideration by the WG. I trust there will be plenty of time to discuss it at RIPE60 before it passes to the other RIRs because of its global implications. [Perhaps an ad-hoc study group is needed to thoroughly research this topic?] However I feel implementation of this policy proposal will have to wait until the NCC has been able to support RFC1437.
-- /TJ
On 01.04.10 14:36, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492)
this proposal is typical of the over-regulation in recent RIPE policies and adds unnecessary complexity to the working environment of network operators. Since network operators cannot remember what they had for breakfast or which shoe fits on which foot, let alone numbers larger than 10, revoking all IPv4 allocations and assignments would create confusion and hurting brains at LIRs all over Europe and Japan because network operators would need to learn new numbers. I for one oppose this proposal, especially since IPv4 will never run out now that we have end to end transparent NAT. And now excuse me, I have to attend to my pony and my helmet. Marcus -- man-da.de GmbH, AS8365 Phone: +49 6151 16-6956 Petersenstr. 30 Fax: +49 6151 16-3050 D-64287 Darmstadt e-mail: ms@man-da.de Geschäftsführer Marcus Stögbauer AG Darmstadt, HRB 94 84
On 1 Apr 2010, at 14:17, Marcus Stoegbauer wrote:
Since network operators cannot remember what they had for breakfast or which shoe fits on which foot, let alone numbers larger than 10, revoking all IPv4 allocations and assignments would create confusion and hurting brains at LIRs all over Europe and Japan because network operators would need to learn new numbers.
Why would that be a problem? There's another thread on this list which suggests there's a need for a policy about allocating easy to remember numbers. This will dovetail rather well with Nick's proposal.
May I assume this was an April Fool's Day joke ? If it was not, we are talking about enormous amount of man-hours to renumber every single network in RIPE region. The same amount of time can be spent on IPv6 reconfiguration instead. Cheers, Cagri Yucel Adapt -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 01 April 2010 13:36 To: Address Policy Working Group Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly) Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492) Summary of Proposal: This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines. The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC. Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone. Policy Text: a. Old text Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492. b. New policy text Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492: -- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken. All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1! The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. -- a. Arguments supporting the proposal Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all. This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment. b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above). Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim. This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please contact Adapt Group, London, 020 3009 3300. Adapt, Adapt Managed Services and Centric Telecom are all trading names of operating companies wholly owned by Adapt Group Limited (Company No. 05275131) which is registered in England and Wales. Its registered office is 35 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1NH.
Cagri, On the other hand, "enormous amount of man-hours" makes a lot of work space and job offers for anyone. It may help to fix social problems caused by crisis and by mistakes of different goverments. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Cagri Yucel <cagri.yucel@adaptplc.com> wrote:
May I assume this was an April Fool's Day joke ?
If it was not, we are talking about enormous amount of man-hours to renumber every single network in RIPE region. The same amount of time can be spent on IPv6 reconfiguration instead.
Cheers,
Cagri Yucel Adapt
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 01 April 2010 13:36 To: Address Policy Working Group Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492)
Summary of Proposal:
This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines.
The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC.
Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone.
Policy Text: a. Old text
Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492.
b. New policy text
Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492:
-- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments
An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken.
All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1!
The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. --
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all.
This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment.
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above).
Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.
This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
This message has been scanned for viruses by Mail Control - www.adaptplc.com
The information in this internet email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please contact Adapt Group, London, 020 3009 3300.
Adapt, Adapt Managed Services and Centric Telecom are all trading names of operating companies wholly owned by Adapt Group Limited (Company No. 05275131) which is registered in England and Wales. Its registered office is 35 New Broad Street, London, EC2M 1NH.
-- Regards, Gennady Abramov
Nick, all, I'm totally against this new proposal 2010-02. I just checked the release notes of the latest software version of our Firewall vendor. There is no support for subnets of 640 addresses today. Even worse, there is no sign of it in the latest roadmap we received. Another problem I see is that very few IP address management databases support a /22,678 as subnet mask. Marc
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 01 April 2010 14:36 To: Address Policy Working Group Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Revoke and Re-assign Fairly)
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492)
Summary of Proposal:
This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines.
The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC.
Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone.
Policy Text: a. Old text
Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492.
b. New policy text
Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492:
-- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments
An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken.
All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1!
The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. --
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all.
This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment.
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above).
Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.
**** DISCLAIMER **** http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer
Full support for maintaining the April Foools' Day tradition ;-). RD Le 1 avr. 2010 à 14:36, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
Number: 2010-01 Policy Proposal Name: Revoke and Re-assign Fairly Author: Nick Hilliard, INEX Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: 1 April 2010 Current Phase: Discussion - Open for Discussion Phase ends/ended: 1 April 2010 Latest Status: Initial Community Discussion Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: New Policy Term: Indefinite Policy Documents to be Affected: * IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Procedures for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492)
Summary of Proposal:
This proposal revokes all previous IPv4 LIR allocations and direct / LIR assignments, returning all ERX and RIPE NCC-assigned IPv4 address space back to the RIPE NCC, where it can be re-assigned fairly, using new policies and guidelines.
The RIPE NCC has been acting as RIR in the European / Middle-East geographical areas since 1989. Due to egregiously lenient policies and gross end-user address wastage, in combination with a more recent tendency to horde IPv4 addresses in anticipation of a future shortage, recent research has suggested that approximately 97% of IPv4 address assigned and allocated through the RIPE NCC aren't actually used at all, and never were. Furthermore, this research suggests that if all this address space were returned to the RIR for re-assignment, this would create enough slack space in the IPv4 address pool to service all future requests in the RIPE NCC service region for approximately 100-150 years, based on current actual run-rate, rather than the current fantasy figures published by the RIPE NCC.
Also included as part of this policy is a future restriction to limit all future direct assignments to 640 IPv4 address, because that should be enough for anyone.
Policy Text: a. Old text
Remove sections 5, 6 and 7 in RIPE 492.
b. New policy text
Insert new section 5 in RIPE 492:
-- 5.0 Policies and Guidelines for Allocations and Assignments
An allocation is a block of IPv4 addresses from which assignments are taken.
All allocations and assignments made prior to April 1, 2010 are hereby revoked, cancelled, and made null and void. LOL!!11!!!1!
The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are. --
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
Every LIR and PI holder is hoarding address space like there's no tomorrow. By forcing a reboot of the entire registry system, every holder will be equally wrong-footed, and will realise that there's no need to hoarde address space after all.
This policy will have the side effect of ensuring that this insane rush to IPv6 is entirely unnecessary, proving beyond all doubt that the ITU seriously has no clue when it comes to Internet resource assignment.
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
It is likely that nay-sayers and other party-poopers will come out of the wood-work to bleat about how this proposal is unfair. The author advises that they get a life and stop hoarding numbers. After all, they're only numbers. And if they really need more, they can contact me directly (see contact details above).
Some companies will attempt to claim that they have more than 640 customers. Clearly, this can't be true because any company with more than 640 customers would be making a profit, which everyone knows to be a ridiculous claim.
The RIPE NCC will allocate 640 IPv4 addresses to each LIR, because that that should be more than enough for anyone. PI assignments requests will be greeted with even more giggles than they currently are.
Why 640 ? A /32 should be enough for everybody. MarcoH
participants (13)
-
Cagri Yucel -
Gennady Abramov -
Gert Doering -
James Blessing -
Janos Zsako -
Janos Zsako -
Jim Reid -
marc.neuckens＠belgacom.be -
Marco Hogewoning -
Marcus Stoegbauer -
Nick Hilliard -
Rémi Després -
TJ