Policy building - call for volunteers
Apologies for the previous formatting :) --- Community friends, Who would like to get involved in some policy building? Putting the “work” back into Working Group, we are seeking volunteers to follow-up on the following two RIPE Database Requirements Task Force recommendations relating to address policy. 2.1. The task force recommends that as resource holders have full responsibility over the registration of their IPv4 PA assignment(s), they are free to make assignments or not. If the community accepts this recommendation, the relevant RIPE Policies should be updated accordingly, and documenting IPv4 PA assignment(s) will stop being a policy requirement. 2.2. Following the data consistency principle, the task force also recommends resource registration requirements be applied consistently to all Internet number resources, regardless of their type or status. https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/database-requir... https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767 Much of the heavy lifting has already been performed by the task force, and the recommendations have received positive feedback during previous RIPE meetings and BoFs. Please respond with your interest to this thread or directly to the Address Policy WG Co-Chairs. Regards, James APWG co-chair
Hi James, On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:59:44AM +0200, James Kennedy wrote:
2.1. The task force recommends that as resource holders have full responsibility over the registration of their IPv4 PA assignment(s), they are free to make assignments or not. If the community accepts this recommendation, the relevant RIPE Policies should be updated accordingly, and documenting IPv4 PA assignment(s) will stop being a policy requirement.
Is this line of thought that a responsibility over the registration of an aggregate IP resource implies optional documenting of a resouce subset explained somewhere? Was utilization of an aggregate resource the only reason to document details? Thank you for comments or pointers. Martin
Hi Martin, On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:50 AM Martin Stanislav <ms@uakom.sk> wrote:
Hi James,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:59:44AM +0200, James Kennedy wrote:
2.1. The task force recommends that as resource holders have full responsibility over the registration of their IPv4 PA assignment(s), they are free to make assignments or not. If the community accepts this recommendation, the relevant RIPE Policies should be updated accordingly, and documenting IPv4 PA assignment(s) will stop being a policy requirement.
Is this line of thought that a responsibility over the registration of an aggregate IP resource implies optional documenting of a resouce subset explained somewhere? Was utilization of an aggregate resource the only reason to document details?
Explanation and analysis from the TF on that recommendation can be found in the archives of APWG RIPE meeting sessions: - RIPE83, agenda item F: https://ripe83.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ap-wg/ - RIPE83, agenda item G: https://ripe82.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ap-wg/ In the interest of being productive and moving forward with the recommendations to the next phase, we would now like to focus on getting interested volunteers to work on developing policy proposals via the PDP (Policy Development Process). There will be ample opportunity for the community to revisit and discuss any detail once again during the PDP: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 Regards, James APWG co-chair
Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:59:44AM +0200, James Kennedy wrote:
2.1. The task force recommends that as resource holders have full responsibility over the registration of their IPv4 PA assignment(s), they are free to make assignments or not. If the community accepts this recommendation, the relevant RIPE Policies should be updated accordingly, and documenting IPv4 PA assignment(s) will stop being a policy requirement.
Well... this is a somewhat deckchair-related activity... but... the sole purpose of an IPv4 *allocation* is to make *assignments* out of it, and no address can be ever used without it being assigned. LIRs have never been free to "make assignments or not", and I do not think this train of thought has merit. Matter of fact, if you tell someone "use this IP address", you've done an assignment, even if not filling in paperwork ("RIPE-141's") for it - which is something we got rid of. OTOH, the much more interesting question is "whether or not to *register* assignments in the RIPE DB". This is the question that should be asked. - should/must assignments be registered in the RIPE DB - if yes, for what purpose - and with what level of detail - and even if we agree on a "must" there, how could it be enforced, given that the primary enforcement mechanism ("document need for the next allocation") is gone? speaking as a LIR contact, we've stopped putting customer contacts into inet(6)num: objects we maintain (by default), pointing to our role objects instead - the customer (org) *name* is still there, but there is very little benefit in putting phone numbers for someone working at a customer org into the RIPE DB when we're the prime contact for all questions anyway... (so, GDPR, avoid storing data that is not useful). Personally, I'd go with "voluntarily register assignments when there is insight to be gained", but encourage doing so. For end user pools, just register the pool as such ("dialup customers, bavaria").
2.2. Following the data consistency principle, the task force also recommends resource registration requirements be applied consistently to all Internet number resources, regardless of their type or status.
But not all resources are alike. LIRs won't ever come back for more IPv4 space, but they might come back for more IPv6 - and in that case, "document need" is required. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
James Kennedy -
Martin Stanislav