ETNO Contribution on IP Addressing in a Post IPv4 World Reallocation of resources
Dear colleagues I am forwarding ETNO Position on the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal. ETNO supports this Policy Proposal, but requests for a clarification to be included. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ETNO has considered the new version of the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, submitted for discussion in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. ETNO believes this revised version that provides for additional criteria to demonstrate the need for an LIR to receive IPv4 addresses trough transfer, is significantly improved. Therefore ETNO will support this Policy Proposal. Still there are outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. 1. Introduction ETNO members have carefully reviewed the new version of the RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-08 related to the "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", which proposes to use inter-LIR transfer mechanisms. This new version of the proposal has been examined in light of the principles expressed in the two previous ETNO position papers circulated in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list (CP082 - 2007/10, and EC097 2008/05 publicly available also at www.etno.be, Position Papers 2007/2008). ETNO welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this new version. 2. ETNO analysis and comments The major change between Version 2 and Version 3 of the policy proposal is the requirement for the receiving LIR to have their need evaluated by the RIPE-NCC before a transfer can be completed. ETNO believes that this requirement is necessary in order to avoid speculative behaviours. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but would like to propose for a clarification to be included in the proposal. ETNO suggests that following the text of the proposal: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC", the following text should be inserted: "The transfer should be formally approved by the RIPE-NCC". 3. Outstanding considerations ETNO has outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. It should be mentioned that these considerations do not impact the approval of the current policy proposal. 1. ETNO believes that reclamation by the RIRs of allocated but unused addresses can offer a way to reuse IPv4 blocks of addresses. In the future, what impact will this new policy have on any reclamation activity? Is it possible to reconcile the reclamation activity from historic, legacy space and the procedures for inter-LIR transfer? 2. Since the significant volume of allocated but unused addresses resides in the historic, legacy space and these addresses are generally not maintained by Local Internet Registries, what will be the impact of this policy proposal? In the future will it be a requirement that the donor be an LIR even in the situation where legacy space is being transferred? Such a requirement could be counter productive to reintroduce unused legacy space in the RIR/LIR management. 3. Given the limited scope of the policy, does this proposal have a significant impact on the availability of additional IPv4 addresses prior to exhaustion of the pools of "fresh" IPv4 addresses from IANA? 4. Conclusion ETNO is positive to any flexibility that could provide a limited amount of IPv4 addresses, and can help the transition to IPv6, but believes that this will not solve the broad issue if IPv4 exhaust and should not distract ISPs and operators from finding appropriate and long term solutions to maintaining a stable Internet. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but has requested for a clarification to be included.
Dear Christina and esteemed colleagues at ETNO, Thank you for providing us with your opinion. You are absolutely correct in the clarification you requested - it is ofcourse only after the NCC approves the need that space can be transferred, it would be pointless otherwise. How I would envisage the system to work is the following: - A LIR files a request for address space in pretty much the same way that happens today - After NCC approves the request, the request is put on a 'prequalified' list; this list should be public. - Address space that is returned to the NCC gets allocated to these requests on some form of 'first come first served' basis. - Alternatively, LIRs with an approved request on that list can try to get IPv4 space transferred to them, up to the size of the request. - Either getting space allocated by NCC or getting space transferred from another LIR fullfills the request which then gets taken off the list. The LIR can then later file another request, which is evaluated by NCC etcetera. Now, as for the requirement for the transferer to be an LIR is for a simple reason. There has been an ongoing project to get a grip on the ERX space - finding out who is currently entitled to what IPv4 space. Right now, we don't have that certainty for IPv4 space which hasn't been registered with an RIR. In other words, if the RIR doesn't have some level of certainty on who the current holder is, and that the transferer is actually entitled to receive the compensation for the transferred space, we can't assist that transfer with some serious legal repercussions. On the other hand, if a holder of ERX space wishes to 'monetize' that right, it is very likely that the business case for becoming a LIR, getting that space registered and transferred is very likely to be a positive one. Kind regards, Remco van Mook -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Kelaidi Christina Sent: donderdag 16 oktober 2008 9:32 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] ETNO Contribution on IP Addressing in a Post IPv4 World Reallocation of resources Dear colleagues I am forwarding ETNO Position on the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal. ETNO supports this Policy Proposal, but requests for a clarification to be included. Christina Kelaidi ETNO Naming Addressing and Numbering Issues (NANI) WG Chairperson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ETNO has considered the new version of the RIPE 2007-08 Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources, submitted for discussion in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list. ETNO believes this revised version that provides for additional criteria to demonstrate the need for an LIR to receive IPv4 addresses trough transfer, is significantly improved. Therefore ETNO will support this Policy Proposal. Still there are outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. 1. Introduction ETNO members have carefully reviewed the new version of the RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-08 related to the "Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", which proposes to use inter-LIR transfer mechanisms. This new version of the proposal has been examined in light of the principles expressed in the two previous ETNO position papers circulated in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group mailing list (CP082 - 2007/10, and EC097 2008/05 publicly available also at www.etno.be, Position Papers 2007/2008). ETNO welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this new version. 2. ETNO analysis and comments The major change between Version 2 and Version 3 of the policy proposal is the requirement for the receiving LIR to have their need evaluated by the RIPE-NCC before a transfer can be completed. ETNO believes that this requirement is necessary in order to avoid speculative behaviours. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but would like to propose for a clarification to be included in the proposal. ETNO suggests that following the text of the proposal: "An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by the RIPE NCC", the following text should be inserted: "The transfer should be formally approved by the RIPE-NCC". 3. Outstanding considerations ETNO has outstanding considerations regarding the extent and effect of this proposal that should be addressed by the community. It should be mentioned that these considerations do not impact the approval of the current policy proposal. 1. ETNO believes that reclamation by the RIRs of allocated but unused addresses can offer a way to reuse IPv4 blocks of addresses. In the future, what impact will this new policy have on any reclamation activity? Is it possible to reconcile the reclamation activity from historic, legacy space and the procedures for inter-LIR transfer? 2. Since the significant volume of allocated but unused addresses resides in the historic, legacy space and these addresses are generally not maintained by Local Internet Registries, what will be the impact of this policy proposal? In the future will it be a requirement that the donor be an LIR even in the situation where legacy space is being transferred? Such a requirement could be counter productive to reintroduce unused legacy space in the RIR/LIR management. 3. Given the limited scope of the policy, does this proposal have a significant impact on the availability of additional IPv4 addresses prior to exhaustion of the pools of "fresh" IPv4 addresses from IANA? 4. Conclusion ETNO is positive to any flexibility that could provide a limited amount of IPv4 addresses, and can help the transition to IPv6, but believes that this will not solve the broad issue if IPv4 exhaust and should not distract ISPs and operators from finding appropriate and long term solutions to maintaining a stable Internet. Based on the above ETNO will support RIPE 2007-08 "Policy Proposal Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources", but has requested for a clarification to be included. Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com
participants (2)
-
Kelaidi Christina -
Remco van Mook