Policy proposal 2009-01
Folks, As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin. 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region. Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about. The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all. I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward. All the best Nigel
As an old fogey with somewhat nostalgic views on how things work...
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
...I suggest we do this. It took me a while to come around to this view because I wasn't entirely sure that 'demonstrating solidarity' was the right phrase to use, but on reflection it is spot on. Withdrawing or rejecting the policy puts us in the same position as ARIN -- we can claim space from the mythical returned pool, but don't have to return any for the common good ourselves, whereas AfriNIC, LACNIC and APNIC, having passed their versions of the policy, do have to do that. What is really needed is a lock on global policies until they are approved by all the RIRs, and I note from the APWG agenda for Prague there is an enticing item (well, I find it interesting) called "????-?? Global Policy State in RIPE PDP (Dave Wilson)." In the meantime, we work with what we have, and I support 2009-1. I look forward to hearing other opinions. :) Best regards, Rob -- Rob Evans JANET(UK) Development Team Twitter: https://twitter.com/JANETDev/team Work tweets: https://twitter.com/internetplumber JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
As an old fogey with somewhat nostalgic views on how things work...
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
...I suggest we do this. It took me a while to come around to this view because I wasn't entirely sure that 'demonstrating solidarity' was the right phrase to use, but on reflection it is spot on.
Withdrawing or rejecting the policy puts us in the same position as ARIN -- we can claim space from the mythical returned pool, but don't have to return any for the common good ourselves, whereas AfriNIC, LACNIC and APNIC, having passed their versions of the policy, do have to do that.
<aol> arin's position would be embarrassing to them if they had a sense of social responsibility. randy
Rob Evans wrote: [...]
What is really needed is a lock on global policies until they are approved by all the RIRs,
Indeed. And although some of us (personally) tried to point out the problems with unilterally (and partly for non-technical teasons) going ahead with a very specific text, at a time when the eventual problems were discussed and to be expected already(!), it didn't help.
and I note from the APWG agenda for Prague there is an enticing item (well, I find it interesting) called "????-?? Global Policy State in RIPE PDP (Dave Wilson)."
:-) But even if *our* region would agreee on such a thing, it wouldn't have helped in other regions ;-)
In the meantime, we work with what we have, and I support 2009-1.
I look forward to hearing other opinions. :)
Best regards, Rob
Wilfried
Thank you Nigel for kicking this off.
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
Speaking as one of the original authors, I would support going through with the original proposal. The requirement to return space was essential to the idea behind the policy draft in the first place. Taking this requirement out renders the policy pointless. I don't want to load the discussion with notions of "solidarity", but rather focus on the utility of policies. Which in my view has disappeared from the ARIN policy text. cheers, Axel
Hello, Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ??? Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.). Regards, Carlos On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote:
Folks,
As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.
All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.
All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about.
The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all.
I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward.
All the best
Nigel
I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else in the world. (*) * Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which placed such laws on their respective books. It was generally considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have followed suit. --bill On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Hello,
Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ???
Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.).
Regards, Carlos
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote:
Folks,
As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.
All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.
All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about.
The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all.
I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward.
All the best
Nigel
Carlos Friacas wrote: [...]
Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.).
I think we should stop the mudslinging and name-calling. More so, as the actual behaviour of a particular region has been, and is, different from what is implied here.
Regards, Carlos
The folks from ARIN have very concisely explained what they believe are their legal boundary conditions to consider, and to respect. Whether we in RIPE-Land like those - or not - is a different story and outside the scope of a global policy discussion, imho... Thanks, Wilfried.
On 13/04/2010 14:31, Nigel Titley wrote:
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
There are two other options. 5. We adopt the proposal but make its commencement dependent on all other RIRs adopting it. or: 6. We adopt a slightly modified form of the proposal, which would allow RIPE to return address space to IANA with a proviso that this address space was returned on the basis that it may only be re-assigned to other RIRs who have adopted mandatory address space return. Nick
Hi Nick,
5. We adopt the proposal but make its commencement dependent on all other RIRs adopting it.
Because this is a Global Policy that is already the case. Even if we declare consensus on the original version it would only be implemented if/when ARIN also accepts the original version. - Sander
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 13/04/2010 14:31, Nigel Titley wrote:
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
There are two other options.
5. We adopt the proposal but make its commencement dependent on all other RIRs adopting it.
or:
6. We adopt a slightly modified form of the proposal, which would allow RIPE to return address space to IANA with a proviso that this address space was returned on the basis that it may only be re-assigned to other RIRs who have adopted mandatory address space return.
I tend to like this one... however, AFRINIC, LACNIC and APNIC would probably need to ammend their already aproved policy on this subject too... Regards, Carlos
Nick
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 10:27 +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
6. We adopt a slightly modified form of the proposal, which would allow RIPE to return address space to IANA with a proviso that this address space was returned on the basis that it may only be re-assigned to other RIRs who have adopted mandatory address space return.
I tend to like this one... however, AFRINIC, LACNIC and APNIC would probably need to ammend their already aproved policy on this subject too...
Yes, adoption of a modified form of the proposal just bangs another nail into the coffin. Can I reiterate? This proposal is dead. I'm just trying to make the funeral arrangements and give it a decent burial before people start to wrinkle their noses and remark how stuffy it's getting. Nigel
6. We adopt a slightly modified form of the proposal, which would allow RIPE to return address space to IANA with a proviso that this address space was returned on the basis that it may only be re-assigned to other RIRs who have adopted mandatory address space return.
I tend to like this one... however, AFRINIC, LACNIC and APNIC would probably need to ammend their already aproved policy on this subject too...
If it turns out that ARIN does not change their mind, and this policy has some negative effects in that scenario, then RIPE can always rescind the policy at any future time. --Michael Dillon
It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we can rise above that. I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about 2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice. With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of 2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not. IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse. If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive positions: 1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow 2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to RIPE policy
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:26 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we can rise above that.
We would not be tweaking the policy to show displeasure. Option 1 (which "shows displeasure with ARIN") is actually the original proposal. Option 2 which doesn't, tweaks the policy. Sorry to be pedantic.
I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about 2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice.
I'm happy with that.
With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of 2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not.
In my original terms we decide either to adopt option #1 (go with the existing proposal) or option #4. I'm very happy with offering just these choices.
IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse.
This is a fair point... and I'm happy to accept it if the community decides this is the consensus position.
If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive positions:
1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow
This is 2009-01 in essence.
2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to RIPE policy
This is a new policy and outside scope for the present discussion. Nigel
Well, allow me to step back a couple of <whatever is your favourite choice for measuring distance> and look back what happened... First of all, imho there has been a fundamental flaw in this proposal, from the very beginning (and this has only become apparent in retrospct, so no criticism here! If I would have noticed in time I would be much happier now): this proposal tried to combine a global policy - which by def. is meant to direct IANA'S operation! - with a "humanitarian" or "political" resource-re-distributio aspect for recovered address space (if any) to apply equally in all regions. So, actually, it combined a global policicy with regional policies. The latter aspect failed. I don't want to get into details, or what my personal opinion is, just stick to the facts and the process.
From what has happened already, wearing my hat as a member of the Address Council, I consider the current approach as doomed. Which is a Goog Thing, imho, because it makes the reasoning of "backing up" the position of *one* region or of *three* regions, by having RIPE accept a) or b), irrelevant.
Because whatever the "result" is, either 4:1 or 3:2, it does not help in solving the basic problem: Give IANA a (global) policy how to re-distribute address space which happens to be returned. For whatever reason... So, my proposal would be to withdraw 2009-01 unconditionally, as being o.b.e. At the same time we c|should explore the possibility to start the process for a re-distribution policy for IANA. Taking off my AC hat now... Everything else should be left where I think it belongs: within the regions, to decide how to manage recovered/returned *legacy* resources, that have been "tagged" as being managed in one of the five regions by the ERX process. Wilfried Nigel Titley wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:26 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we can rise above that.
We would not be tweaking the policy to show displeasure. Option 1 (which "shows displeasure with ARIN") is actually the original proposal. Option 2 which doesn't, tweaks the policy. Sorry to be pedantic.
I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about 2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice.
I'm happy with that.
With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of 2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not.
In my original terms we decide either to adopt option #1 (go with the existing proposal) or option #4. I'm very happy with offering just these choices.
IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse.
This is a fair point... and I'm happy to accept it if the community decides this is the consensus position.
If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive positions:
1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow
This is 2009-01 in essence.
2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to RIPE policy
This is a new policy and outside scope for the present discussion.
Nigel
First of all, imho there has been a fundamental flaw in this proposal, from the very beginning
nope. the proposal is progressing precisely as intended. it was designed to show the arin policy weenies as anti-socual imperialists. it is doing so. randy
With my AC hat off - and, indeeed, open to correction on my interpretation of the process...
First of all, imho there has been a fundamental flaw in this proposal, from the very beginning (and this has only become apparent in retrospct, so no criticism here! If I would have noticed in time I would be much happier now): this proposal tried to combine a global policy - which by def. is meant to direct IANA'S operation! - with a "humanitarian" or "political" resource-re-distributio aspect for recovered address space (if any) to apply equally in all regions.
So, actually, it combined a global policicy with regional policies.
The latter aspect failed. I don't want to get into details, or what my personal opinion is, just stick to the facts and the process.
I've been struggling with this, because I had the question: is there really no such thing as a global policy which could reasonably be made contingient on regional policies? I think the answer is found by examining where consensus is achieved. In the RIPE region, we require consensus to implement a policy, and then we require consensus again to change it. So it is for global policies - all regions must ratify it, then all regions must ratify a change. But if you have a global policy that mixes with regional policy, or is in some way dependent on regional policy, then any one regional policy could change in the future, quite legitimately. At that moment the global policy has not been updated, and I assume that IANA operations are presumably still directed by it, but one of the assumptions on which it was based is no longer valid. So it just seems to me that making a global policy that affects, or is dependent on, regional policy, will have problems that aren't easy to predict or solve.
So, my proposal would be to withdraw 2009-01 unconditionally, as being o.b.e.
I feel the same way. My memory is that RIPE held off ratification in the past to see which way the global consensus went. Since it hasn't materialised, I think that there's no benefit to "locking in" any given text in one more region. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +353-1-660 9040 fax: +353-1-660 3666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9
IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse.
A global policy was proposed. Three RIRs accepted it. ARIN did not and proposed a different text. Now it is RIPE's turn. Do we accept ARIN's bid, and approve the same text as ARIN, or do we accept the same text as the other 3 RIRS, or do we reject the global policy outright. Those are the three choices. To continue the global policy proposal, RIPE should accept the text. At that point it is up to ARIN whether or not to change their mind. To reject the global policy, RIPE can simply reject this text and that will likely be the end of it. Or, RIPE could accept ARIN's bid, and adopt the ARIN text. That keeps the global policy in play and puts the onus on the other 3 RIRs to either accept the ARIN/RIPE text or leave the proposal in a stalemate. There is a fourth way, which is to modify this text, but that is really a form of rejection, coupled with a local policy proposal and only makes sense if it does not require other RIRs to act in accord. --Michael Dillon
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well... So how about just having these two possibilities: 1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up. 2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
On 14/04/2010 12:14, Jim Reid wrote:
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well...
So how about just having these two possibilities:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
The UK MoD and the "UK Government Department for Work and Pensions" appear to be the only /8s assigned to individual End Users in this RIR area. I would like to see the proposal go ahead as-is. ARIN's refusal to implement it is unfortunate, but that should not deter the RIPE community from aspiring to do what is best. Nick
I'm in favour of accepting the policy as-is. With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office kpn-ip-office@kpn.com +31 70 45 13398 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Namens Nick Hilliard Verzonden: woensdag 14 april 2010 13:22 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] what to do about 2009-01? On 14/04/2010 12:14, Jim Reid wrote:
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well...
So how about just having these two possibilities:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
The UK MoD and the "UK Government Department for Work and Pensions" appear to be the only /8s assigned to individual End Users in this RIR area. I would like to see the proposal go ahead as-is. ARIN's refusal to implement it is unfortunate, but that should not deter the RIPE community from aspiring to do what is best. Nick
On Apr 14, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well...
So how about just having these two possibilities:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
I personally would favor option 2, at least have it ready and waiting just in case ARIN is going to change their mind on it. Marco
Hi,
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well...
So how about just having these two possibilities:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
I personally would favor option 2, at least have it ready and waiting just in case ARIN is going to change their mind on it.
ok i think i don't want to go too deep into the politics of that proposal and having read some comments on it - again, i think "option 2" is the least stupid one to go with, so i would support this one now. Having said that - i still want to mention that i PERSONALLY (not professionally!) still don't see why we need any of those last-minute-IPv4-policy-changes at all. Just let it [IPv4] die already. (Again, please no discussions on this here, it's not my professional opinion anyways) -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = =====================================================================
Sascha, On 2010-04-14 13:40, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Having said that - i still want to mention that i PERSONALLY (not professionally!) still don't see why we need any of those last-minute-IPv4-policy-changes at all. Just let it [IPv4] die already. (Again, please no discussions on this here, it's not my professional opinion anyways)
In the case of this particular policy I kind of agree. I don't expect a lot of reclaimed space to appear as we approach and pass various milestones in IPv4 allocation (IANA done, first RIR done, and so on). There has been HUGE amount of discussion based on what seems to me to be largely a hypothetical situation. But... I do think this points to an area of possible concern. I have often thought that as IPv4 resources become more limited, people are going to start having problems. (What do you mean I can't have a /18 for my new POP?) At that point, questions will be raised. (Why wasn't I told?! Why didn't somebody *do* something?!?!) Fingers will be pointed. (Who's fault is this?!?!?!) People or organizations with little familiarity about the Internet and its governance will step in, either of they want to or because their constituents demand it. Certainly for local policies, each RIR can and should operate in local best interest. But for global policies, the RIRs should work together. If the Internet hopes to maintain its limited self-regulation, then the various policy making bodies *need* to stand together. I probably shouldn't mention it, but honestly ARIN has always been the "odd man out" from the RIRs. This is partially historical, since ARIN in in some ways old (coming from InterNIC) and in other ways new (arriving later than the RIPE NCC and APNIC). I think it is also partially because ARIN is very US-focused, rather than serving the interests of a broad area. So it won't surprise me if ARIN is the first to reject global policies to pursue local interests. I do know that it would make life generally more difficult for organizations on the Internet (for example, by complicating inter-regional address transfer). What I do not know is how to avoid a rift between the RIRs, or minimize the harm such a rift causes. -- Shane
I do think this points to an area of possible concern. I have often thought that as IPv4 resources become more limited, people are going to start having problems. (What do you mean I can't have a /18 for my new POP?) At that point, questions will be raised. (Why wasn't I told?!
ARIN has solved this issue by sending a letter in the post to the CEO of every LIR explaining about IPv4 runout and IPv6 availability. If RIPE has not done so, it would be a good idea to protect against lawsuits.
Why didn't somebody *do* something?!?!)
It would be good for the RIPE web site to have a page explaining the history of IPv4 runout concerns leading to classful IPv4 addressing, then VLSM and CIDR, then the development and deployment of IPv6. Dates are essential to show that there was ample time for people to take action.
Fingers will be pointed. (Who's fault is this?!?!?!)
At some time, perhaps RIPE should start playing hardball in its messages. Wouldn't it illustrate management incompetence if a network operator has not already started their contingency plans for IPv4 runout, and IPv6 deployment? I'm sure that if RIPE held some free educational sessions for financial analysts in the major cities of Europe which host stock exchanges, that those analysts would start asking some pointed questions during the next quarterly reporting season. Frankfurt, Paris, Milan, London, Moscow, Geneva and so on.
People or organizations with little familiarity about the Internet and its governance will step in, either of they want to or because their constituents demand it.
Knowing that this wave of activity and concern is coming, RIPE would be wise to step in front of the wave and lead the discussions. On the one hand, there is no need to panic because lots of people and organizations have been working hard in preparation. But on the other hand, some percentage of organizations have their head in the sand and will suffer, perhaps even to the point of bankruptcy. We may have another telecoms collapse next year, due to the issues surrounding IPv4 runout and IPv6 readiness. Remember the big bank failures recently, that were triggered by a sharp drop in the value of credit default swaps that was the result of problems in the US mortgage market? Now, after the fact we know that some people did see this problem coming, that they prepared their companies for the crash, and/or tried to warn others what was happening. The IPv4 runout may not be such a major event, but we are in a similar position as knowledgeable insiders who are trying to get the message across. I think that as long as we make the attempt to get the message out there, nobody will shoot the messenger. The blame will correctly be placed on those who ignored the messages. --Michael Dillon
Option 2 would have my vote. No spare /8 to hand over myself, though, sorry. Best Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: woensdag 14 april 2010 13:15 To: michael.dillon@bt.com Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] what to do about 2009-01? Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well... So how about just having these two possibilities: 1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up. 2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept. Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over? This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
sounds reasonable, but it has the downside of not making an assessment of the merits of the proposal as well as delivering the second bullet.
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's
It's always easy to approve of something that you know doesn't come into effect. So, if the community really wants this option, we better assume it be implemented sooner or later _and_ emphasize the commitment by appropriate communication outside the PDP process. -Peter
Jim Reid wrote:
Michael, I was hoping we could reduce the number of options to consider for 2009-01, not add to them. Oh well...
So how about just having these two possibilities:
1) Withdraw 2009-01. It's dead. Heroic measures to revive it and achieve a global policy are not going to have a happy outcome. So accept that situation and give up.
Personally, I'd opt for 1)
2) Continue with 2009-01 with a view to aligning things with the other RIRs except ARIN. Perhaps that might persuade ARIN to reconsider. It's also good PR because we're committing to making recovered space available for the greater good, even if that recovered space will probably just exist as an abstract concept.
So what's the point then?
Does anyone here have a spare /8 to hand over?
Looking at the global environmant, my feeling is that the communities of the RIRs should rather act as a body speaking with one voice to the outside world; rather than engaging in mental experiments of 3:2 or 4:1 scores. Being seen as having major differences or a "shoot-out" between RIRs (or their communities) will probably be used against our common interests. Wilfried.
With the understanding that this is a global policy that has to be approved in the same terms by all regions and have after that a public consultation period at ICANN level before final approval by the ICANN Board, I would strongly support the option 1. Given the fact that a significant part of legacy resources are in the ARIN region, the option where we could allow the RIPE-NCC to return address space to IANA with re-assignment being only be possible to other RIRS having adopted the mandatory address space return process could very well be accepted by ARIN, but doesn't address the issue in a fair way. In my view all RIRs should participate the same way in the process or none of them, and if one RIR community do not accept to be part of of process it should be clearly publicised to the global community and stakeholders. I also suggest that this issue which is a global issue is addressed publicly during the next ICANN meeting in Brussels in an open information Session of the ASO. Alain Alain Bidron FT/PRESIDENCE/NCPI/NAD/EAS/NAN Head of Naming Addressing Numbering Unit tel. + 33 1 57 36 17 24 mob. + 33 6 87 65 90 94 alain.bidron@orange-ftgroup.com -----Message d'origine----- De : address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] De la part de Nigel Titley Envoyé : mardi 13 avril 2010 15:31 À : address-policy-wg@ripe.net Objet : [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01 Folks, As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin. 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region. Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about. The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all. I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward. All the best Nigel ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
On 13 apr 2010, at 15.31, Nigel Titley wrote:
Folks,
As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.
All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.
All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:
1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.
2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else
3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.
Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about.
The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all.
I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward.
My highly personal opinion is that the proposal has merit so should therefor go forward. That said, as long as there is not global acceptation the policy will not apply - which is a shame but protect the rest of us from potentially returning space to IANA just to see it reallocated to ARIN... Best regards, - kurtis -
On 14/04/10 12:16, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote:
My highly personal opinion is that the proposal has merit so should therefor go forward. That said, as long as there is not global acceptation the policy will not apply - which is a shame but protect the rest of us from potentially returning space to IANA just to see it reallocated to ARIN...
+1 /Niall
On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Nigel Titley wrote:
... Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about.
Nigel - The RIPE 2009-1/ARIN 2009-3 global policy proposal has also provisions which provide for a clear process for reallocation of recovered address space returned to the IANA, and these aspects of the global policy are quite likely useful independent of the policy as a "statement" of unity about returning recovered address space. It's important to note that the term "recovered address space" includes both voluntarily returned space as well as space reclaimed due to legal action or abuse determination, and hence it's not unreasonable to think that there will be resources put into the recovered address space pool if this policy is globally adopted (even in the absence of voluntarily returned space). The ARIN community identified that the decision to return recovered address space to the IANA is a local (not global) policy decision. ARIN's present practice has been to return to the IANA any significant address space which was voluntarily returned to ARIN (for examples, see the following writeup: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>) and until a new ARIN policy is established, we will continue that practice. If the other regions adopt their respective policy proposals, we will have an outcome operationally very similar to the original proposal, but with regional policy control over what gets returned to IANA. As you note, that fails as a unified statement of greater good, but each region should also consider if the resulting global policy would result in a useful outcome despite this failing. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 10:45 -0400, John Curran wrote:
The RIPE 2009-1/ARIN 2009-3 global policy proposal has also provisions which provide for a clear process for reallocation of recovered address space returned to the IANA, and these aspects of the global policy are quite likely useful independent of the policy as a "statement" of unity about returning recovered address space.
This is indeed true, but would be a side-effect of the policy. And I'm not sure if IANA would feel bound by any policy that was not global.
It's important to note that the term "recovered address space" includes both voluntarily returned space as well as space reclaimed due to legal action or abuse determination, and hence it's not unreasonable to think that there will be resources put into the recovered address space pool if this policy is globally adopted (even in the absence of voluntarily returned space).
Agreed.
The ARIN community identified that the decision to return recovered address space to the IANA is a local (not global) policy decision. ARIN's present practice has been to return to the IANA any significant address space which was voluntarily returned to ARIN (for examples, see the following writeup: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>) and until a new ARIN policy is established, we will continue that practice.
Excellent... and plaudits to ARIN for their selfless behaviour, modulo, of course, any definition of what constitutes "significant".
If the other regions adopt their respective policy proposals, we will have an outcome operationally very similar to the original proposal, but with regional policy control over what gets returned to IANA. As you note, that fails as a unified statement of greater good, but each region should also consider if the resulting global policy would result in a useful outcome despite this failing.
The problem is, of course, that this policy was proposed as a global policy and what I am trying to do here is tidy things up in the RIPE region. I'm perfectly open to the idea that we have individual regional policies, but this would surely require us to start the process again with new regional (as opposed to global) policies? Also, of course, the note above about regional policies possibly not being binding on IANA still stands. Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
The ARIN community identified that the decision to return recovered address space to the IANA is a local (not global) policy decision. ARIN's present practice has been to return to the IANA any significant address space which was voluntarily returned to ARIN (for examples, see the following writeup: <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/>) and until a new ARIN policy is established, we will continue that practice.
Excellent... and plaudits to ARIN for their selfless behaviour, modulo, of course, any definition of what constitutes "significant".
Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to IANA
not significant? Since there is no policy currently by which IANA can hand out anything less than a /8 it seems that returning smaller blocks to IANA so they can be stuck there might not be such a great idea? How about a global policy directing IANA how to hand out smaller blocks to the RIRs might be in order? That policy is here http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html *Allocation Principles* - The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units. - The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the RIRs to support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period. - The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of their work. Thanks! ----Cathy
Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to IANA not significant?
Hmmmm, 4 months supply? No, I don't think that is a significant amount. Sure, where there are low hanging fruit like that it makes sense to put in the effort and clean things up even if it is only 4 months supply. But step back and look at the big picture, and even IANA's issue with smaller blocks, probably won't make much difference one way or another. In fact, you could consider that to be a nice cushion so that when everybody says the cupboard is bare, IANA can raise their hand and say "here are a few sweepings from the back corner that we could hand out if anyone can use a few crumbs". --Michael Dillon
Well if all we're discussing is "crumbs" then what's the point? Writing a policy to force regions to give back "crumbs"? I do feel that it's a good idea to enable IANA to have a mechanism to hand out the crumbs. Soon that's all that will be left. What's wrong with making the returning of the crumbs to IANA a regional decision and giving IANA the ability to hand them out to RIRs if it gets them? Just a thought. ----Cathy On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:37 AM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to IANA not significant?
Hmmmm, 4 months supply? No, I don't think that is a significant amount. Sure, where there are low hanging fruit like that it makes sense to put in the effort and clean things up even if it is only 4 months supply.
But step back and look at the big picture, and even IANA's issue with smaller blocks, probably won't make much difference one way or another. In fact, you could consider that to be a nice cushion so that when everybody says the cupboard is bare, IANA can raise their hand and say "here are a few sweepings from the back corner that we could hand out if anyone can use a few crumbs".
--Michael Dillon
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 -0600, cja@daydream.com wrote:
Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to IANA not significant? Since there is no policy currently by which
4 /8s is indeed nice. And my original compliment to ARIN still stands.
IANA can hand out anything less than a /8 it seems that returning smaller blocks to IANA so they can be stuck there might not be such a great idea? How about a global policy directing IANA how to hand out smaller blocks to the RIRs might be in order?
Well, that of course is what 2009-01 provided.
That policy is here http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html
Allocation Principles
* The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units. * The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the RIRs to support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period. * The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of their work.
And this policy is going to be completely ineffective once IANA has less than a /8 in store... which is next year, remember. One of the goals of 2009-01 was to provide a means for IANA to accept and allocate smaller than /8s. But I re-iterate. I'm only trying to sort out the washup of 2009-01. It isn't ever likely to be a global policy now. All the best Nigel
In my opinion it would be easy to get a global policy passed that enabled IANA to give out smaller blocks. It's the rest of the policy viewed as regional at least by folks in the ARIN region that is causing problems. ----Cathy On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 11:18 -0600, cja@daydream.com wrote:
Nigel would you not consider directly returning 4 entire /8s back to IANA not significant? Since there is no policy currently by which
4 /8s is indeed nice. And my original compliment to ARIN still stands.
IANA can hand out anything less than a /8 it seems that returning smaller blocks to IANA so they can be stuck there might not be such a great idea? How about a global policy directing IANA how to hand out smaller blocks to the RIRs might be in order?
Well, that of course is what 2009-01 provided.
That policy is here http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-IPv4-rirs.html
Allocation Principles
* The IANA will allocate IPv4 address space to the RIRs in /8 units. * The IANA will allocate sufficient IPv4 address space to the RIRs to support their registration needs for at least an 18 month period. * The IANA will allow for the RIRs to apply their own respective chosen allocation and reservation strategies in order to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of their work.
And this policy is going to be completely ineffective once IANA has less than a /8 in store... which is next year, remember. One of the goals of 2009-01 was to provide a means for IANA to accept and allocate smaller than /8s.
But I re-iterate. I'm only trying to sort out the washup of 2009-01. It isn't ever likely to be a global policy now.
All the best
Nigel
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
And this policy is going to be completely ineffective once IANA has less than a /8 in store... which is next year, remember. One of the goals of 2009-01 was to provide a means for IANA to accept and allocate smaller than /8s.
The policy remains effective even after IANA has less than a /8 in store, as any subsequent returned address space will still be subject to it. Since address space can be returned for numerous reasons, the policy will almost certainly see some use if adopted.
But I re-iterate. I'm only trying to sort out the washup of 2009-01. It isn't ever likely to be a global policy now.
In the absence of such a policy, there is no incentive at all to return resources to the IANA, as they lack a policy to reissue them (in the case of smaller blocks) or will issue them entirely to one RIR (in the case of a /8) which is to the detriment of all other regions. While having the address return be designated by the RIR may not be ideal, at least in the ARIN region that is considered a far better outcome than the non-functional IANA that we're presently heading towards. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
participants (23)
-
alain.bidron＠orange-ftgroup.com -
Axel Pawlik -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Carlos Friacas -
cja＠daydream.com -
Dave Wilson -
Jim Reid -
John Curran -
kpn-ip-office＠kpn.com -
Lindqvist Kurt Erik -
Marco Hogewoning -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Peter Koch -
Randy Bush -
Remco van Mook -
Rob Evans -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Lenz -
Shane Kerr -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet