Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46
Dear WG; Here are some items for a draft agenda, please send me comments as soon as possible; - wg-charter - policy process - PI policy - initial IPv4 allocation size - RIR- IANA relationship and procedures - RIPE-152 Charging by local registries - Final revised IPv4 policy
RIPE 46 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda (v4) A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - RIPE 45 lir-wg minutes http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html - Actions B. Report from RIPE NCC Registration Services (Leo Vegoda) C. Internet Resource Status Report (Leo Vegoda) D. ICANN ASO Address Council Report E. Presentation of ASO Address Council Candidates http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/aso2003/index.html Election in plenary F. Address Policy WG Charter http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00075.html G. RIPE-152 Charging by local registries http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html H. Policy Development Process I. RIR-IANA relationship and procedures (Axel Pawlik) J. PI Address Policy & Initial IPv4 allocation size http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00030.html K Final revised IPv4 policy http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00010.html X. AOB Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting Z. Open Microphone
Hans Peter, what is your intention with regards to item J on the agenda? Leo's message gave inconclusive and incomplete information about the PI task force work, merely citing a few bullet points with expressions such as "there was some support for this". I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation. I haven't seen any description of the options discussed at the TF and what were the arguments for some having "some support" and others "less support". I reckon background for this would help immensely in carrying out a sensible discussion. I guess that according to your mail regarding the policy process at RIPE, the item is not meant to rubber stamp any policy change at this time but if progress is to be expected on a timely manner, a concrete problem statement with options analysis would go a long way in avoiding discussion loops. Also, how does the outcome of item J affect item K? regards, Joao Damas On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 12:26 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
RIPE 46 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda (v4)
A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - RIPE 45 lir-wg minutes http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html - Actions
B. Report from RIPE NCC Registration Services (Leo Vegoda)
C. Internet Resource Status Report (Leo Vegoda)
D. ICANN ASO Address Council Report
E. Presentation of ASO Address Council Candidates http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/aso2003/index.html Election in plenary
F. Address Policy WG Charter
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00075.html
G. RIPE-152 Charging by local registries http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html
H. Policy Development Process
I. RIR-IANA relationship and procedures (Axel Pawlik)
J. PI Address Policy & Initial IPv4 allocation size
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00030.html K Final revised IPv4 policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00010.html
X. AOB
Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting
Z. Open Microphone
what is your intention with regards to item J on the agenda?
Leo's message gave inconclusive and incomplete information about the PI task force work, merely citing a few bullet points with expressions such as "there was some support for this".
If that is the case: the outcome of the agenda item should be one of two: a) Keep existing policy b) Find a way to conclude with a proposal that can gain consensus in the future.
I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation.
Maybe we can ask leo to produce some data here ?
I haven't seen any description of the options discussed at the TF and what were the arguments for some having "some support" and others "less support".
I reckon background for this would help immensely in carrying out a sensible discussion. I guess that according to your mail regarding the policy process at RIPE, the item is not meant to rubber stamp any policy change at this time but if progress is to be expected on a timely manner, a concrete problem statement with options analysis would go a long way in avoiding discussion loops.
Very good point indeed.
Also, how does the outcome of item J affect item K?
Interesting question. I have not read all of the draft to answer that question yet. Anyone else ? Regards, -hph
regards, Joao Damas
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 12:26 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
RIPE 46 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda (v4)
A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - RIPE 45 lir-wg minutes http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html - Actions
B. Report from RIPE NCC Registration Services (Leo Vegoda)
C. Internet Resource Status Report (Leo Vegoda)
D. ICANN ASO Address Council Report
E. Presentation of ASO Address Council Candidates http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/aso2003/index.html Election in plenary
F. Address Policy WG Charter
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00075.html
G. RIPE-152 Charging by local registries http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html
H. Policy Development Process
I. RIR-IANA relationship and procedures (Axel Pawlik)
J. PI Address Policy & Initial IPv4 allocation size
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00030.html K Final revised IPv4 policy
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00010.html
X. AOB
Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting
Z. Open Microphone
Hi, Hans Petter Holen <hpholen@tiscali.no> wrote: [...]
I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation.
Maybe we can ask leo to produce some data here ?
I've run through our statistics and have some data for you. About 89% of requests are for End Users, about 5.4% of requests are for the LIRs' own infrastructure, about 2.5% are for IXPs and another 2.5% are closed by the LIR sending the request before it's clear who will use the space. I hope this is helpful. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager
Leo, thanks for the numbers. How about the rest of the information requested? On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 11:17 AM, leo vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Hans Petter Holen <hpholen@tiscali.no> wrote:
[...]
I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation.
Maybe we can ask leo to produce some data here ?
I've run through our statistics and have some data for you.
About 89% of requests are for End Users, about 5.4% of requests are for the LIRs' own infrastructure, about 2.5% are for IXPs and another 2.5% are closed by the LIR sending the request before it's clear who will use the space.
This data, which I would guess the TF had access to, puzzles me when I re-read your summary posted earlier, specifically point 3. 3. No longer assign PI (Portable) address space to End Users - There some support for to this point. The issue of Root DNS Servers was raised but it was noted that all Root DNS Servers operating in this region already have address assignments. 89% of the requests seems to be an indication of a need for this type of assignments, yet there seems to be "some support" to end it. Can we have a look at the arguments that were discussed about this subject? Can we, in general, have more background on the arguments that were for and against the different options during the TF's work?
I hope this is helpful.
Yes, it is helpful, but more data ought to be released for a proper understanding of the problem to be possible, I believe. Joao Damas
Hi Joao, Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@psg.com> wrote:
Leo,
thanks for the numbers. How about the rest of the information requested?
You wanted some information on the background, types of PI requests and other things. We don't keep statistics on the motivation for a request for PI address space. In fact, we don't ask for it in most cases. We just make sure that the requester is aware of the issues that come with small blocks of address space and any possible alternatives to PI address space. However, we do keep statistics on the stated use the address space will be put to. However, the majority of PI assignments we make will be used for more than one purpose. In these cases it is often impossible to label an assignment with a single category. Instead, we label it as "Miscellaneous". This year, the "Miscellaneous" category has been appropriate in about 69% of assignments. Another 19% were for office LANs. We also had 4% used for server hosting, 3% for broadband services, about 1% for P2P links and about 1% for GPRS services. [...]
89% of the requests seems to be an indication of a need for this type of assignments, yet there seems to be "some support" to end it.
Can we have a look at the arguments that were discussed about this subject?
I asked the PI Task Force whether it might be better to just publish an archive of the discussion on the web site. There was no object and so I have asked our Ops people to put it up later today. It will be available from: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager
Hi Leo, many thanks for making this material available. Thanks also for the additional IP request accounting information. Knowing that more than 2/3 of the requests need to be categorised under miscellaneous is already a useful piece of information. Is the task force now done and should further discussions on this topic be carried out in this list? Joao
thanks for the numbers. How about the rest of the information requested?
You wanted some information on the background, types of PI requests and other things.
We don't keep statistics on the motivation for a request for PI address space. In fact, we don't ask for it in most cases. We just make sure that the requester is aware of the issues that come with small blocks of address space and any possible alternatives to PI address space.
However, we do keep statistics on the stated use the address space will be put to. However, the majority of PI assignments we make will be used for more than one purpose. In these cases it is often impossible to label an assignment with a single category. Instead, we label it as "Miscellaneous".
This year, the "Miscellaneous" category has been appropriate in about 69% of assignments. Another 19% were for office LANs. We also had 4% used for server hosting, 3% for broadband services, about 1% for P2P links and about 1% for GPRS services.
From what I remember of what you said in Barcelona, the absolute numbers of PI space assigned is really low though, right? - kurtis -
Hi, On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:23:59PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: [...]
From what I remember of what you said in Barcelona, the absolute numbers of PI space assigned is really low though, right?
We made 408 in the first half of this year. There are also some other stats in the summary I sent the list, at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/msg00030.html Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
participants (5)
-
Hans Petter Holen
-
Joao Damas
-
Joao Luis Silva Damas
-
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
-
leo vegoda