On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Scott Leibrand wrote:

Good catch. I support the change, and the proposal.

-Scott

I support the proposal only partially. No objections to "LIR should be asked about the utilisation of all address resources ..." I'm against the position about "documentation of all address resources they hold, including pre-RIR registrations". The "documentation" in pre-RIR times did not look like "forms for gathering the required information", with "network infrastructure and future plans" from ripe-471 (6.1.). They only contained a template for db and that's all. To fulfil the proposed policy, I have to turn to customers of pre-rir /16s and ask them "all" to re-right their request forms to ripe-381. Which is hardly possible. LIR that holds pre-rir registrations is unable to provide the "documentation of all ... pre-RIR registrations" as the policy proposal demands. With respect, Larisa Yurkina -------------- RIPN Registry Center

Ingrid Wijte wrote:

...

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources

Dear Colleagues,

The Discussion Period for the proposal 2008-07 has been extended until 24 August 2009.

The text of the policy proposal 2008-07 has been revised.

We have published the new version (version 3) today. In the new version, new members, requesting an initial allocation, are also asked about the utilisation and documentation of all address resources they hold, including pre-RIR registrations. In version 2 this was only proposed for additional allocations.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html

As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal.

We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.

Regards,

Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

--- RIPN Registry center -----

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Philip Smith wrote:

Hi Larisa,

Hi Philip,

Larisa A. Yurkina said the following on 28/7/09 16:33 :

...

I'm against the position about "documentation of all address resources they hold,including pre-RIR registrations". The "documentation" in pre-RIR times did not look like "forms for gathering the required information", with "network infrastructure and future plans" from ripe-471 (6.1.). They only contained a template for db and that's all. To fulfil the proposed policy, I have to turn to customers of pre-rir /16s and ask them "all" to re-right their request forms to ripe-381. Which is hardly possible.

I don't see where the proposed policy says that customers who received pre-rir address space from you have to now fill in ripe-381 style forms. Can you point me to the text?

"When requesting an additional allocation, an LIR will be asked about the utilisation and documentation of all address resources they hold, not just those they have received from the RIPE NCC (this includes pre-RIR registrations)." You include pre-rir registrations into procedure of getting additional allocation for LIR. Ripe-471 says: "Additional address space will only be allocated after the information supplied with the request has been verified and a new allocation deemed necessary." What kind of information you must supply? Please see the standard hm questionnaire: "For each netname listed which was assigned using your AW, please tell us what the organisation does and how they are using the address space. Please include numbers of customers and customer:IP ratio where such services are being provided. For broadband services using more than a /20 in total, please provide current utilisation statistics. This will give us an overview of how the IP addresses are distributed within the networks." In fact, it is ripe-381 information. Which is not a problem for your recent assignements documentation you have to keep according policy. But it can cause problems for some 15 years-old assignements. How you motivate old customers to provide inform like that? Just because you need a new allocation? All that can make getting additional allocation very problematic.

What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your customer has received pre-RIR space from you, and they are announcing it all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc.

The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space.

I'm completely agree, if address space is not used, it should be re-assigned to those who use it. But, your proposal does not say a about "document the utilisation of those addresses" in some other way than the standard procedure of getting a new allocation. If you propose some kind of utilisation rate documentation for pre-rir please give more details.

Does this address your concerns?

philip --

Thank you. With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center -----

Hi Philip, all, just let me state that I support the general idea and goal. Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my personal support for the proposal. the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all* additioal assignments in the first place? There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by the (related) LIR. This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation? Philip Smith wrote:

Hi Larisa, [...] What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your customer has received pre-RIR space from you,

How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here...

and they are announcing it all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc.

Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-) Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases, but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument?

The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space.

I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it?

Does this address your concerns?

philip --

Wilfried. PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal, eventually?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

Hi Philip, all,

Hi Wilfried, Philip, all,

just let me state that I support the general idea and goal.

So do i.

Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my personal support for the proposal.

the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all* additioal assignments in the first place?

There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by the (related) LIR.

This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation?

I suppose yes, thank you.

Philip Smith wrote:

...

Hi Larisa, [...] What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your customer has received pre-RIR space from you,

How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here...

...

and they are announcing it all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc.

Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-) Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases, but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument?

Policy proposal says about 'documentation' but not about 'use'. 'Use' and 'documentation' is not the same.

...

The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space.

I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it?

I'd add something. My LIR has several allocations really ancient, 1995 -1998. Which of them are "pre-rir", which are not, is not clear to me. I'm afraid that it is going to become clear only when additinal allocation will be required. What kind of documentation should I submit then?

...

Does this address your concerns?

philip --

Wilfried.

PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal, eventually?

With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center -----