Hi all, For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. Thoughts? 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. Reasons: - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal). Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way. Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal. IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. Best regards Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a):
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Martin, I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question. Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of organizations. I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler). Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy? The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per end-site, the other with /32. Anything else? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi Jordi, I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. Reasons: - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal). Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way. Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal. IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. Best regards Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > Thoughts? > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that. I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE DB, of course. By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in such future? In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. Sincerely, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a):
Hi Martin,
I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that.
I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question.
Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of organizations.
I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler).
Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy?
The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per end-site, the other with /32. Anything else?
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal.
Reasons: - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused
Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal).
Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4.
There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way.
Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI.
Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal.
IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one.
Best regards Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > Thoughts? > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > >
********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi Jordi, As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference. I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that. I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE DB, of course. There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. So, no difference here. By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in such future? Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler. In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter. I'm more and more convinced as we exchange emails on this, that either we clarify very well what is a sub-assignment (and if you follow the last couple of emails on that discussion you will see how difficult may be to clarify that with a "short" text), or we just put all in the same "class" of addressing space. Sincerely, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question. > > Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of organizations. > > I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler). > > Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy? > > The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per end-site, the other with /32. Anything else? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > Hi Jordi, > > I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. > > Reasons: > - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space > - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space > - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused > > Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal). > > Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. > > There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way. > > Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. > > Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal. > > IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. > > Best regards > Martin > > Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > > Hi all, > > > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
in-line Regards, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a):
Below, in-line.
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Jordi,
As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned.
This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference.
Discussion should be about, if we want to / should remove such *obstacle*. I would personally prefer that policy about PI space would stay the same. Just RIPE NCC should be more investigative and restrictive when assigning those.
I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that.
I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE DB, of course.
There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. So, no difference here.
Sure it is not an obligation, it is just my understanding what is meant by current policy or what it should mean.
By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in such future?
Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler.
Easy as a flat rate for every LIR. Actually this is the main problem problem for me. LIR should by the name work as local internet registry. This has been broken for IPv4 by IPv4 shortage. Not everyone should be forced to be a RIPE NCC member. I'm perfectly fine with 50 EUR fee for every /48 for those. Such organization which needs PI have no plans for assigning addresses to third parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to act as one? This would make IPv6 addresses less accessible. It is like LIR saying: "Do you want to have your own addresses or more then I gave you? Go to the RIPE NCC and pay them 1400 EUR/y! No matter what you do...". Those PI users would either loose protection of their own space or they would had to pay 28x more per year plus 2000 EUR sign up fee. What would do company outside of the internet business? They would not implement IPv6, that is easy! :-)
In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view.
So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter.
2016-04 is not the problem, it doesn't say that you can use PI as PA. It just allows you to use your PI range on your premise and give access to such network to the third party. It does not allow you to give whole range to CPE.
I'm more and more convinced as we exchange emails on this, that either we clarify very well what is a sub-assignment (and if you follow the last couple of emails on that discussion you will see how difficult may be to clarify that with a "short" text), or we just put all in the same "class" of addressing space.
Actually I don't think so. I still thinks that PI should stay PI, but it should be checked more thoroughly to whom it is given.
Sincerely, Martin
Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question. > > Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of organizations. > > I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler). > > Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy? > > The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per end-site, the other with /32. Anything else? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > Hi Jordi, > > I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. > > Reasons: > - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space > - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space > - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused > > Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal). > > Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. > > There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way. > > Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. > > Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal. > > IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. > > Best regards > Martin > > Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > > Hi all, > > > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > >
********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Responding below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:29 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI in-line Regards, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Below, in-line. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > >> Hi Jordi, > >> As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. > > This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference. Discussion should be about, if we want to / should remove such *obstacle*. I would personally prefer that policy about PI space would stay the same. Just RIPE NCC should be more investigative and restrictive when assigning those. Being Internet policy is very difficult. If we have ways to avoid that, is an easier way to achieve the same. Policies are for a fair distribution of the resources, to make that distribution simpler, not to have complex policies and then being unable to track how well anyone is behaving with them. >> I'm not competent enough to tell if it is better to have the same contract with members and non-members, maybe someone from RIPE NCC can answer that. > >> I think that they should be isolated because they should be used for different things. PA for networks with single upstream - they should receive ALLOCATED-BY-LIR from LIR's PA. PI for customers with the second upstream. On the other hand we all know that PI is used as small PA, without editing RIPE DB, of course. > > There is not anymore an obligation, for many years, to have multihoming. So, no difference here. Sure it is not an obligation, it is just my understanding what is meant by current policy or what it should mean. >> By removing PI, you would had to allow non-members to receive PA or you would had to force every current PI holder to became LIR. I know that most of the new members are in RIPE just for IPv4, but in the distant IPv6 only future, what would be the result of such change? What would be the reason to be a member in such future? > > Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler. Easy as a flat rate for every LIR. Actually this is the main problem problem for me. LIR should by the name work as local internet registry. This has been broken for IPv4 by IPv4 shortage. Not everyone should be forced to be a RIPE NCC member. I'm perfectly fine with 50 EUR fee for every /48 for those. Such organization which needs PI have no plans for assigning Is easier, but it is fair? addresses to third parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to act as one? The problem is that once we accepted 2016-04, that got broken. End-users being assigned a /48 are using that now to sub-assign addresses to other end-users (employees, students, users of a hot-spot, etc.). This would make IPv6 addresses less accessible. It is like LIR saying: "Do you want to have your own addresses or more then I gave you? Go to the RIPE NCC and pay them 1400 EUR/y! No matter what you do...". Those PI users would either loose protection of their own space or they would had to pay 28x more per year plus 2000 EUR sign up fee. What would do company outside of the internet business? They would not implement IPv6, that is easy! :-) As said before, this is fixed in combination with the fee structure decision by the AGM. So *no*, on the contrary, will be fairer. I think probably a 50 Euros cost for a /48 is really too low, and may be a /32 will become cheaper, and of course, a /20 more expensive. There are many possible models for that, but it can be perfectly managed to avoid anyone having a requirement from a /48 to not being able to afford it. >> In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. > > So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter. 2016-04 is not the problem, it doesn't say that you can use PI as PA. It just allows you to use your PI range on your premise and give access to such network to the third party. It does not allow you to give whole range to CPE. It allows sub-assigments, which was not the intent of the original IPv6 PI, at all. > I'm more and more convinced as we exchange emails on this, that either we clarify very well what is a sub-assignment (and if you follow the last couple of emails on that discussion you will see how difficult may be to clarify that with a "short" text), or we just put all in the same "class" of addressing space. Actually I don't think so. I still thinks that PI should stay PI, but it should be checked more thoroughly to whom it is given. >> Sincerely, >> Martin > > Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > > Hi Martin, > > > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and also large non-ISP) need addressing space. Call it PI or PA is another question. > > > > Having a single contract doesn't goes against the need for both kind of organizations. > > > > I think we both agree. What I'm saying is that there is no need to have both into different policies if are able to simplify for both organizations to have a single contract and a single policy (with of course, require a small different justification mechanism - or may be not even to make it much simpler). > > > > Can you tell me why you believe we need to keep them *isolated* ? I mean specific needs that makes impossible to accommodate both into a single policy? > > > > The only *real* difference in the policy is that one starts with /48 per end-site, the other with /32. Anything else? > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > > > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:01 > > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > I must say that I'm strongly against this proposal. > > > > Reasons: > > - Situation between IPv4 and IPv6 is quite different - reasons for canceling IPv4 PI was simply not enough space > > - Not everyone in the business had to be a LIR and some large non ISP organization could be legitimate user of PI space > > - Insufficient checks and under-educated LIRs doesn't necessary mean that concept of PI space is bad, only that it is misused > > > > Now some details. Even in IPv4 there is still PI space left, not for the ordinary networks, but for the IXPs. It is a fact that there are missuses of IPv6 PI space like ISP running in PI space. But if we want to cast the blame, it would come to the uneducated LIR operators and partially to the RIPE NCC because it did not educate them well (or at least explain when to ask for PI in the LIR portal). > > > > Personally, I had to ask my formal upstream (before we became LIR) specifically to make ALLOCATED-BY-LIR object and to make me mnt-lower, step by step because they didn't know how to do that. For such LIR it is easier to ask for PI just because they use to do that for the IPv4. > > > > There are also some large companies that would be legitimate to use current PI space. Not every organization had to be in internet business, so it should not be a LIR at all. Current concept of every major end-user to be a LIR is broken because need of IPv4, lets not spoil the IPv6 world the same way. > > > > Current PI space misuse could have been solved by more in depth checks. Like if the end user is an ISP, it is most likely misuse. Also if someone asks for PI, RIPE NCC should either pick up the phone or write an e-mail and ask LIR why they want to ask for PI. > > > > Can RIPE NCC make video about proper way how to make allocations for LIR's "downstream"/client? Maybe place it in PI assignment wizard in LIR portal. > > > > IPv4 shortage just broke the model LIR. Today just too much end users became a LIRs just to be given IPv4 space, but they would never serve as a local internet registry or would not know how to work as LIR. Canceling the IPv6 PI would not help to solve this problem, it would make it even worse, by pushing more and more end users to became LIR when they are actually not one. > > > > Best regards > > Martin > > > > Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > > > Hi all, > > > > > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > > > > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > > > > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > > > > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > > > > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > > > > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > > > > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > > > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > > > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > > > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > > > > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > > > > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > > > > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:
Responding below, in-line.
*PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You current mode of answering is making this really hard.
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > >> Hi Jordi, > >> As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. > > This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference.
Discussion should be about, if we want to / should remove such *obstacle*. I would personally prefer that policy about PI space would stay the same. Just RIPE NCC should be more investigative and restrictive when assigning those.
Being Internet policy is very difficult. If we have ways to avoid that, is an easier way to achieve the same. Policies are for a fair distribution of the resources, to make that distribution simpler, not to have complex policies and then being unable to track how well anyone is behaving with them.
> Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler.
Easy as a flat rate for every LIR. Actually this is the main problem problem for me. LIR should by the name work as local internet registry. This has been broken for IPv4 by IPv4 shortage. Not everyone should be forced to be a RIPE NCC member. I'm perfectly fine with 50 EUR fee for every /48 for those. Such organization which needs PI have no plans for assigning
Is easier, but it is fair?
This is not for the AP-WG to decide.
addresses to third parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to act as one?
The problem is that once we accepted 2016-04, that got broken. End-users being assigned a /48 are using that now to sub-assign addresses to other end-users (employees, students, users of a hot-spot, etc.).
Well, most people obviously don't consider this "broken" as there has been a consensus after all. And I think we really made clear that it's not a sub-assigment, which was the whole point of the last two years.
This would make IPv6 addresses less accessible. It is like LIR saying: "Do you want to have your own addresses or more then I gave you? Go to the RIPE NCC and pay them 1400 EUR/y! No matter what you do...". Those PI users would either loose protection of their own space or they would had to pay 28x more per year plus 2000 EUR sign up fee. What would do company outside of the internet business? They would not implement IPv6, that is easy! :-)
As said before, this is fixed in combination with the fee structure decision by the AGM. So *no*, on the contrary, will be fairer. I think probably a 50 Euros cost for a /48 is really too low, and may be a /32 will become cheaper, and of course, a /20 more expensive. There are many possible models for that, but it can be perfectly managed to avoid anyone having a requirement from a /48 to not being able to afford it.
>> In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. > > So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter.
2016-04 is not the problem, it doesn't say that you can use PI as PA. It just allows you to use your PI range on your premise and give access to such network to the third party. It does not allow you to give whole range to CPE.
It allows sub-assigments, which was not the intent of the original IPv6 PI, at all.
This may be true but it's not relevent. The "original IPv6 PI" isn't here anymore and the community decided it should be the way it is *now*. Best Max
I will use [Jordi] to make it clear. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <max@rfc2324.org> Fecha: jueves, 17 de mayo de 2018, 17:36 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: > Responding below, in-line. *PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You current mode of answering is making this really hard. > > De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> > > Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 17:28 > > Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > > >> Hi Jordi, > > > >> As I understand it, the PA is only for a LIR and PI is also for sponsored organization. Also the PI is solely for the end user infrastructure and and PA can be further allocated or assigned. > > > > This is our actual definition. We can change it whenever we want. What I'm asking is what is the *real* distinction among them. Forget for a minute in contracts, fee structure and so on. There is no need to call the same with different names if we don't want. I'm calling here for simplicity. Once we remove the sub-assignment obstacle, there is not anymore a difference. > > Discussion should be about, if we want to / should remove such *obstacle*. I would personally prefer that policy about PI space would stay the same. Just RIPE NCC should be more investigative and restrictive when assigning those. > > Being Internet policy is very difficult. If we have ways to avoid that, is an easier way to achieve the same. Policies are for a fair distribution of the resources, to make that distribution simpler, not to have complex policies and then being unable to track how well anyone is behaving with them. > > > Yes, that's the idea, please see my slides. PI holders will need to become members, maybe the fee will get an increase (something on the line of a small one-time setup fee and later on a proportion of the cost of a /32 if you are getting only a /48, etc., but this is for the membership to decide). What we all win with that is a fairer cost distribution and also an easier way to make sure that the rules are followed and nobody tricks the rules using a PI as PA. Specially for the NCC is much simpler. > > Easy as a flat rate for every LIR. Actually this is the main problem problem for me. LIR should by the name work as local internet registry. This has been broken for IPv4 by IPv4 shortage. Not everyone should be forced to be a RIPE NCC member. I'm perfectly fine with 50 EUR fee for every /48 for those. Such organization which needs PI have no plans for assigning > > Is easier, but it is fair? This is not for the AP-WG to decide. [Jordi] Agree, but it was not either when we created IPv6 PI, and all the needed changes were considered in parallel. > addresses to third parties, so why they should be LIR when they don't plan to act as one? > > The problem is that once we accepted 2016-04, that got broken. End-users being assigned a /48 are using that now to sub-assign addresses to other end-users (employees, students, users of a hot-spot, etc.). Well, most people obviously don't consider this "broken" as there has been a consensus after all. And I think we really made clear that it's not a sub-assigment, which was the whole point of the last two years. [Jordi] We aren't going to discuss that over and over again. Different people who read that text has a different interpretation than the impact analysis, so objectively it is broken. > This would make IPv6 addresses less accessible. It is like LIR saying: "Do you want to have your own addresses or more then I gave you? Go to the RIPE NCC and pay them 1400 EUR/y! No matter what you do...". Those PI users would either loose protection of their own space or they would had to pay 28x more per year plus 2000 EUR sign up fee. What would do company outside of the internet business? They would not implement IPv6, that is easy! :-) > > As said before, this is fixed in combination with the fee structure decision by the AGM. So *no*, on the contrary, will be fairer. I think probably a 50 Euros cost for a /48 is really too low, and may be a /32 will become cheaper, and of course, a /20 more expensive. There are many possible models for that, but it can be perfectly managed to avoid anyone having a requirement from a /48 to not being able to afford it. > > >> In my opinion PI should still be here, but only for a special cases, non-ISP non-LIR organizations. So if there will be any use of PI space by ISP for its clients, it should be immediately reclaimed by RIPE NCC. Also LIR should not be entitled to claim PI for itself. But this is just my point of view. > > > > So then, again, let's roll back 2016-04, because is non-sense that somebody instead of using the addressing space for their own organization as end-user, is using it for a hotspot or datacenter. > > 2016-04 is not the problem, it doesn't say that you can use PI as PA. It just allows you to use your PI range on your premise and give access to such network to the third party. It does not allow you to give whole range to CPE. > > It allows sub-assigments, which was not the intent of the original IPv6 PI, at all. This may be true but it's not relevent. The "original IPv6 PI" isn't here anymore and the community decided it should be the way it is *now*. [Jordi] Right, and any community member can suggest improvements again. Best Max ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> Responding below, in-line.
*PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text and your answer. You current mode of answering is making this really hard.
I will use [Jordi] to make it clear.
Then how far does that extend/apply? Speaking for myself, you are significantly increasing your chances of being summarily ignored if you're using difficult-to-decipher quoting conventions. Best regards, - Håvard
Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
In IPv4, the PI policy is different and explicitely allows numbering of transit networks to customer sites (= "my router and their router") from PI space. So running an ISP on PI space is *not* "abusing the policy". Which has been pointed out quite a few times in APWG sessions and nobody saw the need to go for a change here (and since IPv4 PI is now gone, I'm not sure it's a useful usage of the WG's time to spend it on IPv4 PI) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Hi, I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too). Regards Patrick On 16.05.2018 14:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Patrick Velder wrote:
I am against the proposal, but I agree to #4 (from the IPv4 view, too).
Fee structure is unfortunately something we cannot fix (or even work on) here in the APWG. Fees are decided by the AGM - and the "one size fits all" fee came due to member request & vote (we started with a scaled fee by membership size). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
All, rather than making policy successively more dense, technically prescriptive and complicated, is it not way past time to abolish the PA/PI distinction altogether? In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" function. rgds, Sascha Luck On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 02:52:57PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:29:32PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
rather than making policy successively more dense, technically prescriptive and complicated, is it not way past time to abolish the PA/PI distinction altogether? In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" function.
Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights" and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated... (And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Hi Gert, On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" function.
Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights" and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...
I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User. (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR") This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time. The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their end users. The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I think that particular boat sailed a long time ago... rgds, Sascha Luck
(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs? Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them (fee scheme, contract, etc.). I don't see also why this would create more disaggregation. The actual end-users will become LIRs. The actual LIRs will remain as LIRs. Both of them will announce the same addressing space. In summary: Who needs to have stable addresses and avoid renumbering if changing ISP or data center, or whatever, will be an LIRs. What I'm missing from your rationale for having those opinions? There are many ways to do that regarding the fees, for example: 1) Fee depending on the "size" of the allocation (categories, as it was some years ago) 2) Single fee for all 3) 2 fees categories (those receiving more than /32 and those receiving less than that) 4) etc. I think we need to recall that we have been already under 1, and that 4 out of 5 RIRs are still there. So I don't really think is an issue at all. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55 Para: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi Gert, On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" >> function. > >Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it >is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried >a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights" >and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated... I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User. (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR") This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time. The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their end users. The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I think that particular boat sailed a long time ago... rgds, Sascha Luck > >(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI >label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block >for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?) > >Gert Doering > -- APWG chair >-- >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 ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:25:27PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs?
Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them (fee scheme, contract, etc.).
I don't see why this would be desirable. If every end-user had to become a LIR, it would blow the NCC up into this humongous bureaucratic apparatus and, perhaps more importantly, make it a regional monopoly in the truest sense - every business and person needing internet resources would be *forced* to deal with the NCC.
I don't see also why this would create more disaggregation. The actual end-users will become LIRs. The actual LIRs will remain as LIRs. Both of them will announce the same addressing space. In summary: Who needs to have stable addresses and avoid renumbering if changing ISP or data center, or whatever, will be an LIRs.
We are coming at this from opposite sides. What I would like to see is that businesses and people who need (portable) resources don't *have to* become LIRs. Instead they contact their friendly neighbourhood sponsoring LIR and deal through them.
What I'm missing from your rationale for having those opinions?
Many of the LIRs in existence today *do not want to be LIRs*. They have become LIRs mostly because it was the only way for them to get (more) IPv4 resources or they needed portable resources. These LIRs have no interest and, often, no skills in dealing with the RIPE NCC. What I am proposing is, in essence, that LIRs become "sponsoring LIRs" for all resources. No more difference between "ASSIGNED PA" and "ALLOCATED PI", everything becomes, for practical purposes, "SUB-ALLOCATED" This enables LIRs with an interest to become resource management services for those who do *not* have this interest. End Users can choose a LIR to provide these services, if they are not happy with it, they can chose another and -that's the important difference - take their resources with them without having to renumber. Or, if they so chose, can become LIRs themselves. I've actually heard, as an argument for NAT66, that the users in question want to deploy that so they can avoid renumbering when changing connectivity providers. This could be avoided if those resources became portable. It should also have a positive effect on ripedb data quality if all resources are under the care of LIRs with the skills and an interest in their management. It reduces harm to end users' operations if a LIR is shut down for whatever reason. End users can simply switch to another sponsoring LIR. It may solve the issues that some large (governmental) orgs are having with policies and distributed resource management. There may be a de-aggregation effect, this can possibly be mitigated by minimum sub-allocation sizes though that may be wasteful. "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" already does a lot of this but a few changes are needed: - make SUB-ALLOCATED resources portable - change the subsequent allocation criteria to take account of SUB-ALLOCATED space, so it is possible for "sponsoring LIRs" to receive additional allocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not 90% assigned. rgds, Sascha Luck
-----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55 Para: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI
Hi Gert,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" function.
Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights" and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated...
I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User. (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR")
This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.
The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their end users.
The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...
rgds, Sascha Luck
(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Sascha, Below in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 15:47 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:25:27PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >I don't see why this would mean "lower" number of LIRs? > >Actually, I think will be the contrary. I think most of the end-users will become LIRs, especially if the AGM makes a smart move about how to attract them (fee scheme, contract, etc.). I don't see why this would be desirable. If every end-user had to become a LIR, it would blow the NCC up into this humongous bureaucratic apparatus and, perhaps more importantly, make it a regional monopoly in the truest sense - every business and person needing internet resources would be *forced* to deal with the NCC. [Jordi] I'm not sure there is any monopoly issue, but this is up to the NCC to evaluate. As explained in previous emails, this is just one choice, but we have the choice to unify the policy so everything is "allocation", but still have two contracts. >I don't see also why this would create more disaggregation. >The actual end-users will become LIRs. The actual LIRs will remain as LIRs. Both of them will announce the same addressing space. >In summary: Who needs to have stable addresses and avoid renumbering if changing ISP or data center, or whatever, will be an LIRs. We are coming at this from opposite sides. What I would like to see is that businesses and people who need (portable) resources don't *have to* become LIRs. Instead they contact their friendly neighbourhood sponsoring LIR and deal through them. [Jordi] I understand your point, which has been made by several folks already. What I feel strange is that this is the only region out of 5 RIRs, having this issue. Sometime we "get accommodated" to something and even if is not the best option, we don't like to change ... However, as said, having only "allocations" doesn't force us to have a single contract. It may be end-user contract for allocations of /48 per end-site and LIR contract for /32 and up. Remember also that many (small) LIRs are *today* done by other LIRs who manage the thing for them, so again no issue from my perspective. >What I'm missing from your rationale for having those opinions? Many of the LIRs in existence today *do not want to be LIRs*. They have become LIRs mostly because it was the only way for them to get (more) IPv4 resources or they needed portable resources. These LIRs have no interest and, often, no skills in dealing with the RIPE NCC. What I am proposing is, in essence, that LIRs become "sponsoring LIRs" for all resources. No more difference between "ASSIGNED PA" and "ALLOCATED PI", everything becomes, for practical purposes, "SUB-ALLOCATED" [Jordi] That's my main point. Everything becomes "allocated", so we end the endless discussion about if sub-assigment for this or that is correct or not. This enables LIRs with an interest to become resource management services for those who do *not* have this interest. End Users can choose a LIR to provide these services, if they are not happy with it, they can chose another and -that's the important difference - take their resources with them without having to renumber. Or, if they so chose, can become LIRs themselves. I've actually heard, as an argument for NAT66, that the users in question want to deploy that so they can avoid renumbering when changing connectivity providers. This could be avoided if those resources became portable. It should also have a positive effect on ripedb data quality if all resources are under the care of LIRs with the skills and an interest in their management. It reduces harm to end users' operations if a LIR is shut down for whatever reason. End users can simply switch to another sponsoring LIR. It may solve the issues that some large (governmental) orgs are having with policies and distributed resource management. There may be a de-aggregation effect, this can possibly be mitigated by minimum sub-allocation sizes though that may be wasteful. "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" already does a lot of this but a few changes are needed: - make SUB-ALLOCATED resources portable - change the subsequent allocation criteria to take account of SUB-ALLOCATED space, so it is possible for "sponsoring LIRs" to receive additional allocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not 90% assigned. rgds, Sascha Luck >-----Mensaje original----- >De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> >Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55 >Para: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> >CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> >Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI > > Hi Gert, > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >> In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP" > >> function. > > > >Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it > >is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried > >a few years ago, and when you mix in "fees", "membership / voting rights" > >and "allocation size", things get amazingly complicated... > > I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It > doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes > the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User. > (Basically, every LIR becomes a "sponsoring LIR") > > This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they > neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time. > > The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot > higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their > end users. > > The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I > think that particular boat sailed a long time ago... > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > > >(And if you are *not* looking at these aspects, removing the PA/PI > >label isn't actually achieving much, except replacing it by a "block > >for member" vs. "block for non-member" label, no?) > > > >Gert Doering > > -- APWG chair > >-- > >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 > > > > > > > >********************************************** >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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Am 20.05.2018 um 11:48 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
[Jordi] I understand your point, which has been made by several folks already. What I feel strange is that this is the only region out of 5 RIRs, having this issue. Sometime we "get accommodated" to something and even if is not the best option, we don't like to change ...
I tend to think that the RIPE community comes from a different background than maybe other RIR communities, and I don't think doing things a bit differently means necessarily it's bad or not as good as it could be. On the contrary, personally I'd prefer much more openness with ARIN and APNIC, but then, that's not my turf anyway. Regards, -kai
Moin, am 16.05.2018 um 18:55 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml]:
This removes the need for ISPs or hosters to be LIRs where they neither want to nor have the necessary skills or the time.
The outcome would most likely be a lot fewer LIRs with a lot higher fees but they can of course recoup these via fees to their end users.
If there would be only v6, I'd agree, but given that v4 refuses to die, IPv6 is a far lesser incentive to become an LIR compared to the /22 shot of IPv4. I don't expect the number of LIRs in the RIPE area to come down for the next few years. When the past-last-/8 pool has finally dried up, plus 2 years (holding time), well, yes, maybe.
The only negative I can see is deaggregation of IPv6 space but I think that particular boat sailed a long time ago...
I certainly feels that way. Regards, -kai
Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: [...]
I think it would actually simplify a lot of those issues. It doesn't remove the RIR->LIR->End User hierarchy but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
Since when has this been a requirement? Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily" providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or sub-allocate? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:17:43AM +0000, Leo Vegoda wrote:
but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
Since when has this been a requirement?
Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily" providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or sub-allocate?
It's not a formal requirement but, de-facto, if the holder of PA resources wants connectivity, they have to get it from the LIR. Otherwise, why would there be a necessity for "provider-aggregateable" resources? rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 02:09:03PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
It's not a formal requirement but, de-facto, if the holder of PA resources wants connectivity, they have to get it from the LIR. Otherwise, why would there be a necessity for "provider-aggregateable" resources?
That is the "traditional" ISP=LIR model. Especially in the government and enterprise market, there's other models today, like "the government LIR holds a /26, each region in a country has a /32 out of that, and each region is free to pick their own ISP to have the /32 routed". (The impact to the routing table is is about the same as "each region has their own LIR", but for internal administrative reasons these setups prefer to have a common address space for all official networks...) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Hi Gert, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Especially in the government and enterprise market, there's other models today, like "the government LIR holds a /26, each region in a country has a /32 out of that, and each region is free to pick their own ISP to have the /32 routed".
Right. So all that is needed to dispose of PIv6 is to make these /32s portable and perhaps a change in additional allocation calculations in order to let the LIR get more resources if the existing (sub-allocated) resources are not sufficiently utilized. rgds, Sascha Luck
(The impact to the routing table is is about the same as "each region has their own LIR", but for internal administrative reasons these setups prefer to have a common address space for all official networks...)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Hi, On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:54:40PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Especially in the government and enterprise market, there's other models today, like "the government LIR holds a /26, each region in a country has a /32 out of that, and each region is free to pick their own ISP to have the /32 routed".
Right. So all that is needed to dispose of PIv6 is to make these /32s portable and perhaps a change in additional allocation calculations in order to let the LIR get more resources if the existing (sub-allocated) resources are not sufficiently utilized.
This is not *exactly* the same as a "/48". Just sayin' 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
Am 19.05.2018 um 15:09 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml]:
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:17:43AM +0000, Leo Vegoda wrote:
but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide connectivity to an End User.
Since when has this been a requirement?
Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily" providing addresses for network services that they provide. Have I misunderstood the policy, or is there currently a requirement that LIR provide network connectivity to the users of the addresses they assign or sub-allocate?
It's not a formal requirement but, de-facto, if the holder of PA resources wants connectivity, they have to get it from the LIR. Otherwise, why would there be a necessity for "provider-aggregateable" resources?
I don't see this true anymore. Just request e. g. a /47 APNIC ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE space, announce it under your (APNIC) ASN, works. Same works in the RIPE region, and from my perspective that's how it needs to work. As an LIR you receive a big chunk of address space, you distribute it to your sub-organisations, ISPs, End Users — which not necessarily receive IP connectivity from you. Regards, -kai
Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence, I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence, I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Max, I will not have any problem if you need to write something unpolite just to explain much better what is your view. What I will not help in any discussion is just responding "I'm for" or "I'm against" without further explanations. Otherwise, feel free to talk to me at any time during the rest of the week. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 19:22 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence, I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg пише: > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > Thoughts? > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > > ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
[…] I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. […] Thoughts?
To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw out the baby with bath water here: you're not simply "merging the requirements for PI and PA in a single policy", you'd take away any means for a non-LIR to request non-PA IP space. Moreover, you intend to force any current IPv6 PI holder into either becoming an LIR (which amounts to a 28fold cost increase: 50 => 1400 EUR/year) or to abandon the PIv6 space they build there infrastructure on. I don't yet understand what's your agenda, but I'm deeply concerned. Anyway: I oppose this proposal. It would cause a lot harm for no obvious reason. -kai
PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing. There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6. As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, etc. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml@uu.org> Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 22:06 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: > […] > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > […] > Thoughts? To put it in a nutshell, I think you throw out the baby with bath water here: you're not simply "merging the requirements for PI and PA in a single policy", you'd take away any means for a non-LIR to request non-PA IP space. Moreover, you intend to force any current IPv6 PI holder into either becoming an LIR (which amounts to a 28fold cost increase: 50 => 1400 EUR/year) or to abandon the PIv6 space they build there infrastructure on. I don't yet understand what's your agenda, but I'm deeply concerned. Anyway: I oppose this proposal. It would cause a lot harm for no obvious reason. -kai ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi,
PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing.
They are not.
There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6.
Not true. PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate that by myself yet) different routing policies in the DFZ. At least I've seen filters or BCOPs for PA space differ from PI space in the means of what prefix lengths to accept.
As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, etc.
And there you are mixing GM and AP-WG again. This is neither a topic for this WG, nor do I think that there would be any possible consensus about a change in charging schema. And basicly I'm with some other here: What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem to be it. Best Max
Hi Max, Thanks for your inputs. Responding below in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <max@rfc2324.org> Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 2:38 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi, > PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing. They are not. Please, enumerate what are the differences, so we can check one by one. > There is only one type of Global Unicast Addresses in IPv6. Not true. Sorry, can you point me to the RFC that points to that assertion? PI and PA are sliced from different pools which may have (I didn't evaluate that by myself yet) different routing policies in the DFZ. At least I've seen filters or BCOPs for PA space differ from PI space in the means of what prefix lengths to accept. If you look into my presentation you will see that I've already thought about that, so the NCC can continue with the same operational practices as per today: " Actual IPv6 PI assignments are made from a different block. Even if it is an operational NCC issues, I believe it still makes sense for the NCC to keep that structure (a block for ISPs with /32 and bigger allocations) and another block for /48 and bigger allocations (may be up to /33 for organizations/end-sites). Also keep using sparse allocation for both, and allow, while possible that further allocations are made from an adjacent address block." > As I already explained before, the same way the AGM created the end-user contract and the corresponding fee, they should be a new fee structure within the LIR contract, for those that have one of few /48s instead of /32 or /29, etc. And there you are mixing GM and AP-WG again. This is neither a topic for this WG, nor do I think that there would be any possible consensus about a change in charging schema. I know, but BOTH need to be worked somehow with some parallelism. I'm going to say this once more: We didn't have the end-user contract before I proposed the IPv6 PI, then the board and the AGM did the rest. So there is not any issue about repeating that. And basicly I'm with some other here: What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem to be it. For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing with IPv6. Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart. So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing? Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the overall discussion. Best Max ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi, [...]
What is your real intent with all this? Simplification does not seem to be it.
For full disclosure, if you still doubt about it: My intent is only doing work whenever I need it helps, for the good of the community. I'm probably the most objective guy here. I've no any LIR neither end-user (in any RIR), neither I plan. So, whatever is in the policies is not "affecting directly to me". I only had an experimental ASN and IPv6 prefix, many years ago, when I started playing with IPv6.
Despite that, because you seem to think that I'm hiding something, whatever I can say will not convince you. But put yourself in this situation. When anybody submit a policy proposal, should we always think that? If we start with this kind of prejudices, will never help debating on any topic. Not really smart.
Now it's getting personal, which I really don't approve. After read throught the whole thread it seems that no one else asking the same or similar questions is getting the same treatment, so I have to ask myself why I do.
So, once more, can you enumerate what are the special features from IPv6 PI, different that IPv6 PA, that I'm missing?
I don't want to repeat myself or others.
Put aside for a moment all the issues related to fees, because even the AGM could decide to keep the exact same fees for "end-users" as per today even if we remove the IPv6 PI. So that may not change this specific aspect of the overall discussion.
Even *IF* the fee issue wouldn't be touched we would have the issue that some entities - like the RIPE NCC - cannot ever be a RIPE member, hence the use of PI space at the meetings. This will apply to others. To sum this up: I'm totally against this change as it *will* create a whole bunch of new problems, obviously isn't anywhere near a possible (even rought) consensus and I don't see a positive cost / gain ratio. Best Max
I think this is an interesting proposal which requires some through analysis.
From a pure policy point of view I do not think a distinction between PI and PA makes sense in a post-depletion world. Following this reasoning it does not make sense in v6 either.
BUT I do understand the concern that this policy change may affect the membership fees, and I agree that this needs to be solved. The RIPE NCC is a membership organisation that needs to cover its costs from its membership. If policy is changed so that RIPE NCC gets 10x members the membership fee would have to be adjusted similarly. Another approach would be for the RIPE NCC to change its membership fee structure so the fee structure is policy-neutral. So it would be interesting to have a sense not only of support/not support but also support if negative financial effect can be mitigated. On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 14:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg < address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054
I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a SAAS provider hosting it's own product inhouse). When we stop allowing IPv6 PI we would force those entities to, either become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea I think. Jan Hugo On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
Hi all,
For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf
I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix.
1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI).
2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties.
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that.
4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate.
5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated.
Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before.
I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion.
And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone.
Thoughts?
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-- Kind regards Jan Hugo Prins /DevOps Engineer/ <https://betterbe.com> Auke Vleerstraat 140 E 7547 AN Enschede CC no. 08097527 <https://www.kvk.nl/orderstraat/product-kiezen/?kvknummer=080975270000> *T* +31 (0) 53 48 00 694 <tel:+31534800694> *E* jprins@betterbe.com <mailto:jprins@betterbe.com> *M* +31 (0)6 263 58 951 <tel:+31%20%280%296%20263%2058%20951> www.betterbe.com <https://www.betterbe.com> BetterBe accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Hi Jan, We introduced IPv6 PI (I was the author of that policy proposal), because (in this order): 1) There was a claim for it considering that this will help the deployment of IPv6 (your claim for multihoming) 2) It existed in IPv4, so people wanted the same ... 3) It was a way to avoid creating an IPv6 NAT (somehow your mention about internal addresses) 4) ... there were many other minor considerations at that time However, I always stated clearly when I was presenting my own proposal that I was "not" personally in favor of that, and I was only doing that because the community considered that need. But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't worked to resolve that problem. Now, in your text, you mention "but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because they would only use it internally for their own business" ... right, and we broke it with the 2016-4 ... My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single* category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial name. As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate). So, lets thing for a moment that 50 Euros for an ASN, 50 for an IPv4 /22 and 50 for an IPv6 /48 (which in total is 150 Euros), it is really covering the yearly cost of the NCC to maintain those services. Maybe it is fair to just change that for 150 Euros (so no change) for LIRs which have a single end-site, but now they don't have restrictions and we avoid discussions related to if a sub-assignment is correct or not, if it is only a single address or several, and so on. If instead of that, the NCC tell us that the real cost for maintaining those services is 200 Euros, it will be fair that the LIRs aren't subsidizing the end-users, so there is an LIR category for "end-users" that becomes 200 Euros (instead of 150), and then of course, the LIRs cost will drop a bit from 1.400 Euros to maybe around 1.000 euros or whatever is the calculation that the NCC shows is the correct one (this will depend on how many LIRs we have today vs. end-users and how much is the expected increase in each category in the coming years, etc.). Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend the policies to the limit, etc., etc. It is up to the NCC to provide possible fee schemes to accommodate several possibilities, in order the ensure a long-term sustainability of the system and also a *fair* distribution of the real costs. For example, it may be interesting also to consider if the "setup" fee should be really 2.000 euros, or something different (even less than half), if we have a double number of LIRs (when putting together a single contract for all), of if this one-time setup fee must be much lower to accommodate the "real" one-time-setup cost, and then pay just 10 extra (just an example) euros per year in the yearly fee, which is probably more interesting in terms of "long-term" NCC sustainability. Last comment. I can't believe that and end-user, even a small company, is willing to pay to have a BGP router and capable staff (or external services to manage that), and has *an* issue to cover a few extra euros per year in case the (to be defined) "LIR fee for end-users" is 200 or even 500 Euros (again just examples) instead of 150 Euros. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe <jprins@betterbe.com> Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo de 2018, 12:30 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI I think we introduced IPv6 PI because we needed to be able to give address space to entities that only need internal address space, want to be multi-homed, but would never allocate to 3rd party networks because they would only use it internally for their own business (for example a SAAS provider hosting it's own product inhouse). When we stop allowing IPv6 PI we would force those entities to, either become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea I think. Jan Hugo On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf > > I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. > > 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). > > 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. > > 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. > > 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. > > 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: > a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) > b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user > c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. > > Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. > > I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. > > And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. > > Thoughts? > > > 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > -- Kind regards Jan Hugo Prins /DevOps Engineer/ <https://betterbe.com> Auke Vleerstraat 140 E 7547 AN Enschede CC no. 08097527 <https://www.kvk.nl/orderstraat/product-kiezen/?kvknummer=080975270000> *T* +31 (0) 53 48 00 694 <tel:+31534800694> *E* jprins@betterbe.com <mailto:jprins@betterbe.com> *M* +31 (0)6 263 58 951 <tel:+31%20%280%296%20263%2058%20951> www.betterbe.com <https://www.betterbe.com> BetterBe accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single* category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial name.
Speaking for my PI-holding (IPv4 and IPv6) customers, most of them do not *want* to be a LIR. They have a nice contract with a local company (us) that does all the paperwork for them, speaks their local language, they can visit our office if needed, we handle the international money transfer bit, etc. Some *cannot* become a LIR due to governing laws that disallow them to join any sort of association. So "doing away with end-users that have their own space and are not a RIPE member" is not going to fly. Gert Doering -- speaking as sponsoring LIR admin -- 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
Hi Gert, This sounds strange to me, specially the "laws" bit. Unless I'm wrong on this, the other RIRs don't have that "special end-user contract", the membership agreement is the same, and never heard about a single case which it was a trouble at all. Having somebody that do the paperwork for becoming an LIR and any associated work, is something that is being done already today for many companies, so I don't think there is no reason for that being a showstopper. In fact, this is something very common in many business activities (and just for our sector). Last, but not least, we could keep the "end-user" agreement if this is a real problem, but still unify PI and PA. Basically the policy text will say "If you have a need for end-site addressing, such as /48, you will get it *allocated* under the end-user agreement. If you have a need for /32 ... etc ... you will get it *allocated* under the LIR agreement". I think the point that need to be clear is that by removing IPv6 PI, my intent is not to create troubles to anyone, but on the other way around, to simplify and to avoid complex policy text that disallows (because it is assigment instead of allocation), things that *allocations* allows ... which create artificial barriers and bending the rules or their interpretation. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 12:17 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, it is only to make a *single* > category of LIRs for both that accommodate real IPv6 addressing > size needs, because PI and PA are the same, it is just an artificial > name. Speaking for my PI-holding (IPv4 and IPv6) customers, most of them do not *want* to be a LIR. They have a nice contract with a local company (us) that does all the paperwork for them, speaks their local language, they can visit our office if needed, we handle the international money transfer bit, etc. Some *cannot* become a LIR due to governing laws that disallow them to join any sort of association. So "doing away with end-users that have their own space and are not a RIPE member" is not going to fly. Gert Doering -- speaking as sponsoring LIR admin -- 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 ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't worked to resolve that problem.
You're misremembering the problem. The reason for the IPv6 PI policy was not that it was going to help deployment of IPv6, but instead that the lack of easily available, provider-portable IPv6 address space would create unnecessary obstacles to deployment. This hasn't changed.
Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend the policies to the limit, etc., etc. There are ~2600 IPv6 PI assignments associated with ~2450 individual organisations. Your proposal seems to require that these end-user-to-LIR contracts are replaced with end-user-to-RIPENCC contracts.
Can you elaborate on how you see this being handled? And what would the RIPE NCC do if an end-user declined to change? Nick
I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation. Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there are two choices: 1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI holders to the end-user contract 2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract). Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > But, I think it is clear now that the main reason (1), was not > really an obstacle for the IPv6 deployment, and in fact, where we > are lacking "more" IPv6 deployment is in enterprises, so it didn't > worked to resolve that problem. You're misremembering the problem. The reason for the IPv6 PI policy was not that it was going to help deployment of IPv6, but instead that the lack of easily available, provider-portable IPv6 address space would create unnecessary obstacles to deployment. This hasn't changed. > Beard in mind, that having a *single* member contract, means > simplicity for both the NCC and the members, which means somehow a > (marginal) administrative cost decrease, but also simplification for > the policies, less interpretation errors, less people trying to bend > the policies to the limit, etc., etc. There are ~2600 IPv6 PI assignments associated with ~2450 individual organisations. Your proposal seems to require that these end-user-to-LIR contracts are replaced with end-user-to-RIPENCC contracts. Can you elaborate on how you see this being handled? And what would the RIPE NCC do if an end-user declined to change? Nick ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation.
2400 IPv6 PI holders seem to disagree with you.
Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there are two choices: 1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI holders to the end-user contract
The RIPE NCC argued that 2007-01 authorised them to convert an implicit end-user contract for PI holders to an explicit contract. I.e. this was an update to the terms and conditions between a contract which already existed. It looks like you're suggesting that the RIPE NCC take the sponsoring LIR business by force. This is unlikely to be legal in most of the jurisdictions that the RIPE NCC deals with. What happens if either the end user or the LIR refuse to "convert" the end-user-to-LIR contract to an end-user-to-RIPE-NCC contract?
2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).
I still don't understand what problem you're trying to solve here, or why you suggest that eliminating PI assignments is better than keeping them. The rationale that you presented in your talk at APWG was:
- Simplification of the policy and avoid discussions/inconsistencies related to sub-assignments.
– Contractual fairness among different type of IPv6 resource holders.
There are minor issues relating to policy inconsistencies. Arguably, the most serious of those has been fixed already. I disagree that there is contractual unfairness. PI holders don't get the right to sub-assign and they don't get benefits of membership of the RIPE NCC association. Also, what happens with ASNs? All ASNs are direct assignments from the RIPE NCC, which means that unless you're also talking about getting rid of ASN assignments and LIR sponsorship, all of the legal baggage associated with that needs to stay in place. Nick
Am 20.05.2018 um 11:02 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation.
Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there are two choices: 1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI holders to the end-user contract
Luckily, it wouldn't be the "same way"; this time, PIv6 address holders are already bound by the »RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time«. For IPv4 assignments that predated the PI/PA distinction, e. g. from the early years like 1992/1993, nothing like that was agreed on (check ripe-072, ripe-104), so NCC's blackmailing ("sign this contract or we'll redistribute your used v4 space") was, trying to be polite here, a bit on the weird side.
2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract).
So, what would be the advantage? Wouldn't this simply create the incentive to have dirt-cheap ISPs running on End User address, which to prevent seems to be the motivation to start this discussion initially? Regards, -kai
Dear Peers, I think it’s clear this will never reach a consensus. What are we still discussing here ? There’s nothing left to discuss any more. It’s a waste of valuable time. And for the record, I’m strongly against the proposal, the current system works. Had a lovely Sunday evening everyone ! With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel:08750969>. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net<mailto:abuse@clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 20 May 2018, at 17:54, Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml@uu.org<mailto:wusel+ml@uu.org>> wrote: Am 20.05.2018 um 11:02 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: I think it has been proven that lack of IPv6 PI was not an obstacle, just lazy people and no "immediate" incentives, and we are still with the same situation. Regarding the "conversion" of the end-user contracts into LIR contracts, there are two choices: 1) The same way as NCC did to convert the "previous" non-contractual IPv4 PI holders to the end-user contract Luckily, it wouldn't be the "same way"; this time, PIv6 address holders are already bound by the »RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time«. For IPv4 assignments that predated the PI/PA distinction, e. g. from the early years like 1992/1993, nothing like that was agreed on (check ripe-072, ripe-104), so NCC's blackmailing ("sign this contract or we'll redistribute your used v4 space") was, trying to be polite here, a bit on the weird side. 2) We could decide to keep the end-user contract, but still "merge" the PI and PA policies (end-users get *allocated* one /48 for each end-site and sign end user, LIRs get allocated from /32 and sign LIR contract). So, what would be the advantage? Wouldn't this simply create the incentive to have dirt-cheap ISPs running on End User address, which to prevent seems to be the motivation to start this discussion initially? Regards, -kai
Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI,
Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI".
As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate).
I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment. Regards, -kai
On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: :Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: :> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, : :Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI". : :> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate). : :I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment. : :Regards, :-kai : : If my choices are to pay 28x my current fee or abandon using IPv6, I will abandon using IPv6. Quite simply, I can't afford it and **it isn't worth it**. Since I would like to use IPv6, I am very strongly against this proposal. -- Law of the Perversity of Nature: You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Once more ... this is not the point. I mention it as one possible choice (change fees or not, change contract or not). Even if this is not up to the WG, is something that we need to explore as well. However, we can change the policy so that both PA and PI are "allocations" and there is no artificial differences in between and consequently, restrictions which are difficult to define "border lines". Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: :Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: :> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, : :Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI". : :> As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate). : :I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment. : :Regards, :-kai : : If my choices are to pay 28x my current fee or abandon using IPv6, I will abandon using IPv6. Quite simply, I can't afford it and **it isn't worth it**. Since I would like to use IPv6, I am very strongly against this proposal. -- Law of the Perversity of Nature: You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter. ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Am 20.05.2018 um 11:57 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:
Once more ... this is not the point. I mention it as one possible choice (change fees or not, change contract or not).
I looks like there's not much positive feedback to your »proposal«: I suggest to bury it ...
However, we can change the policy so that both PA and PI are "allocations" and there is no artificial differences in between and consequently, restrictions which are difficult to define "border lines".
To me it seems there's not much interesst in changing this, especially as that would pave the way to a usage pattern that seems to be rather unwanted in the community (ISPing off End User address space). Regards, -kai
Hi Kai, below. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml@uu.org> Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:11 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: > My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI". [Jordi] You're taking the tittle literally. If this is a problem I will find a better one "remove differentiation between PI and PA" or whatever. I think across the emails it has been clear. What I think is needed is to remove the fact that PI is assignment and PA is allocation and the "consequences of that". Both should be the same, regardless of fees, contract type, etc. > As I explained already, the intent is not to increase the end-user fees so they pay the same as an LIR, but to have some "proportionality" and to pay for the "real" NCC cost (which maybe still 50 euros, or maybe not, I don't know that, it is something that the NCC should calculate). I've read multiple times that costs are out of scope for the APWG. So without a change towards a per resource fee structure – which is out of scope here –, the proposed change forces PIv6 holders to either become a LIR at 1400,-- EUR/year or abandon their assignment. [Jordi] Please read the other emails. Not an issue if that's the difficulty. The goal is that everything is "allocation". There are many possible ways to do that from the AGM perspective, and even if we don't decide that here, we must discuss it here because it provide "light" on the possible avenues. Regards, -kai ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment.
So what? The people who make the decision about the €50 per annum charge for IPv6 PI holders are the RIPE NCC members who pay €1400 per annum. If they wanted, the price could increase, but they don't want to do this. The current €50 fee exists because that is the membership's informed, explicit choice. Nick
participants (16)
-
Dominik Nowacki -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Havard Eidnes -
Jan Hugo Prins | BetterBe -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Kai 'wusel' Siering -
Leo Vegoda -
Martin Huněk -
Max Tulyev -
Max Tulyev -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrick Velder -
Peter Hessler -
Sascha Luck [ml]