2010-01 New Draft Document Published (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
PDP Number: 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2010-01 has been revised based on the community feedback received. The draft policy document and the impact analysis for the proposal have also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html and the draft document at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2010-01.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 5 August 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi APWG folks, since *no* comments were received on the revised 2010-01 document announced by Emilio some 6 weeks ago, we can't move forward with this ("silence is consent" is valid in Last Call, but not in the discussion and review phases). Please read the document and tell us whether you want to see this become policy or not. We'll prolong the review period by 4 more weeks, to give you time to read & comment this. Thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:37:38PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:
PDP Number: 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies
Dear Colleagues,
The text of the policy proposal 2010-01 has been revised based on the community feedback received.
The draft policy document and the impact analysis for the proposal have also been published.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html
and the draft document at:
http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2010-01.html
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 5 August 2010.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 155817 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 9 aug 2010, at 16:08, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi APWG folks,
since *no* comments were received on the revised 2010-01 document announced by Emilio some 6 weeks ago, we can't move forward with this ("silence is consent" is valid in Last Call, but not in the discussion and review phases).
Please read the document and tell us whether you want to see this become policy or not.
We'll prolong the review period by 4 more weeks, to give you time to read & comment this.
With no hats other than that of a concerned citizen who happened to be involved in conference assignments in the past. I in general agree with this proposal. However I have some concerns regarding the actual content and limitations set in this proposal. I think 7 days beyond the length of a conference is too short, it usually takes a while to get things properly routed and being able to announce the prefix while you go that process I think is mandatory to be able to debug. I would set this to a month minimum, maybe with a note that after the conference a maximum of 7 days is allowed for cleanup. Second concern is cool off or quarantine of previously used space, you probably want some time in between assignments of these resources just in case. For some situations there might even be privacy concerns with this as a block which was recently used for some experiment all of a sudden starts to carry real data from real people visiting a conference. Question for the proposer(s) what about polution, using the same space for experiments as well as conferences in any shape and size might have impact on the reputation of such blocks. I also think that maybe (RIS ?) we should announce a proper last resort when these blocks are not in use, otherwise they are likely to become an easy target for hijacking and this will further damage the usuability of these blocks in the long run. Oh and how should the NCC handle when there are more requests as resources ? This is after all a fiinite pool, if we make it first come first serrve, the draft text should mention somehting. If we can decide on a preference it shouls also be included in the text. Groet, MarcoH
* marcoh@marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) [Mon 09 Aug 2010, 16:30 CEST]:
I think 7 days beyond the length of a conference is too short, it usually takes a while to get things properly routed and being able to announce the prefix while you go that process I think is mandatory to be able to debug. I would set this to a month minimum, maybe with a note that after the conference a maximum of 7 days is allowed for cleanup.
Plus, especially for conferences, a relatively significant amount of time (compared to the length of most conferences) is needed beforehand to have align connectivity, update IRRdbs, have filters updated etc. In my experience this can take a few weeks at least. Likewise, 7 days is short given that in the case of temporary ASN assignments the conference depends on its upstreams to update their IRRdb objects before they can be returned to the NCC.
Second concern is cool off or quarantine of previously used space, you probably want some time in between assignments of these resources just in case. For some situations there might even be privacy concerns with this as a block which was recently used for some experiment all of a sudden starts to carry real data from real people visiting a conference.
Given experience with "debogonising" new IANA assignments, this is a valid concern. The RIPE NCC can alleviate this by assigning in an LRU fashion from the block(s) reserved for this purpose. -- Niels. -- "It's amazing what people will do to get their name on the internet, which is odd, because all you really need is a Blogspot account." -- roy edroso, alicublog.blogspot.com
Hi, Am 09.08.2010 16:08, schrieb Gert Doering:
Hi APWG folks,
since *no* comments were received on the revised 2010-01 document announced by Emilio some 6 weeks ago, we can't move forward with this ("silence is consent" is valid in Last Call, but not in the discussion and review phases).
i know that only commenting on "interesting" policies which concern oneself is a bad habbit, but really, how many people does this one concern at all? The proposer should have sneaked something in the text like "..and regular IPv4 assignments will stop on 31.12.2010." or so :-)
Please read the document and tell us whether you want to see this become policy or not.
We'll prolong the review period by 4 more weeks, to give you time to read& comment this.
Since i haven't needed any temp. assignments yet, i can't say much about the text itself - i think the comments from Marco etc. were reasonable though. I just like to comment on the general idea now. Basically i didn't really react to this proposal because my first thought was "on no, not another legacy IP regulation policy. I don't want any new ones about IPv4.". OTOH since it only concerns TEMPORARY assignments, it's nothing permanent and can be changed again any time in the future. AND it even does help a bit with the depletion of IPv4 since there would be some medium large block being reserved and taken out of the free pool for this ;-) So, in the greater sense of why i think is right, i have no problems with this policy, and it might help some people organizing bigger conferences and similar events in the near future. Since it seems like bigger continuous PI blocks already get scarce, it's about time to think about such things requiring a larger block. No objections. -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = =====================================================================
participants (5)
-
Emilio Madaio -
Gert Doering -
Marco Hogewoning -
niels=apwg＠bakker.net -
Sascha Lenz