Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
Hi all, In general, I'm not sure what a transfer policy will accomplish that can't already be done by an EU org becoming an ARIN (for example member). Lots of orgs in the EU are already members of other RIRs. Obviously, it will enable the authors company to do more business, but I'm not sure that is a compelling reason to adopt this policy proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would not be in support of this proposal. I am willing to be persuaded however. I'm not too happy with the word "sold" or the 15 months limit. If this gets support, I would rather the word "transfer" be used and the limitation on transfer be more like 36 months. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 4/2/12, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 30 April 2012.
Regards
Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC
hi!
proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would
actually this audaciously breaches policy. if ips are not required anymore, their assignment expires. if an allocation is not needed by a lir anymore, it must be returned to the rir. i'd suggest to take action to recover such ip space. to address ipv4 depletion itself, i'd suggest to reevaluate (early) allocations on compliance with current policy, favourably in steps according to the current 'state of depletion' from rir allocations from /0 (ok we might skip that and i hope maybe even the next few ;) onwards. imho this should be done concertedly at the nro level. that's actually a HUGE space we're talking about here... regards, Chris
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 04:59:55PM +0200, Chris wrote:
actually this audaciously breaches policy.
Nope, not necessarily.
if ips are not required anymore, their assignment expires. if an allocation is not needed by a lir anymore, it must be returned to the rir.
assignment != allocation Forcing a LIR to return unused /24s out of their allocation would force the LIR to de-aggregate the rest of that allocation (presumably into /24s). Of course, so does this proposal... rgds, s.
hi! On 04/02/2012 05:15 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
assignment != allocation
right. also, policy clearly states its purpose to ensure 'consistent and fair' allocation 'to meet the needs', and that allocation is tied to usage/assignments. with respect to the nature of ripe this is intrinsic, so i'd find it a bit surprising if that might not be understood or overlooked - if it's really perceived as a problem, it might be the right thing to elaborate on this some more in the policy text. it's ofc relatively uncommon that the need for ip space of a lir actually significantly decreases over time, the opposite being the natural development. nevertheless this - reclaiming of allocated space not needed anymore - happens and is regularly pursued by the ncc. regards, Chris
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0200, Chris wrote:
also, policy clearly states its purpose to ensure 'consistent and fair' allocation 'to meet the needs', and that allocation is tied to usage/assignments.
sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can reclaim part of that allocation - or can it? Of course if a policy were to pass that would enable this sort of fragmenting of allocations and the resulting de-aggregation via prefix trading, one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 04/03/2012 11:56 AM, Sascha Luck wrote:
sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can
we seem to have diverging understandings of 'minimum' here...
reclaim part of that allocation - or can it?
i'd say this is one of the many cases i can imagine/construct where that wouldn't make much sense... (and i'm personally more interested in relevant cases, forgive me if i won't spend much more effort on this - if you want you could e.g. also think about increasing the minimum prefixlength for bgp for this purpose)
one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts.
that's the current situation, and it's being done by ncc (surprisingly where it makes sense ;). regards, Chris
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:16:10PM +0200, Chris wrote:
On 04/03/2012 11:56 AM, Sascha Luck wrote:
we seem to have diverging understandings of 'minimum' here...
there is nothing to understand. The minimum allocation to a LIR is set by policy and was /21. Allocations out of the last /8 are /22. (RIPE NCC service region, I don't know what other RIRs do) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-530 I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are not using all the allocated space.
that's the current situation, and it's being done by ncc (surprisingly where it makes sense ;).
I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation. The policy allows for transfers of allocation blocks to other LIRs withing the NCC region. These blocks must be at least the size of a minimum allocation (/22 now, I guess). I can't imagine much support for any policy that would allow for transfer of individual /24s (be it via the RIRs or by trading them) because of the fragmentation / deaggregation caused. As far as I am concerned, this proposal is just another crutch to keep ipv4 alive for that little bit longer, so, while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it. rgds, Sascha Luck
regards,
Chris
On 04/03/2012 12:40 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
there is nothing to understand.
well... err, probably right, i guess... ;)
I would assume that many (particularly smaller) LIRs are not using all the allocated space.
...which means that they do not reach the minimum allocation size - and therefore don't get an allocation? i'll stick with my understanding that this is simply 'what you get anyway' (i.e. handled as 'needed by definition')...
I am not aware of the NCC reclaiming unused parts of any allocation.
well then: *surprise* :)
while I don't really care about v4 anymore, I oppose it.
to get back to the point, yes, i (obviously) oppose 2012-01, too. regards, Chris
participants (3)
-
Chris -
McTim -
Sascha Luck