Hi Tore,

Thanks for explaining this particular use case.

Reading the proposed New Policy Text, it provides the LIR with an 
adminsitrative choice. Whilst I understand this choice, the rantionale behind 
the proposal is to find a reasonable way to fill the gap for the Provider 
Allocations not registered for the specific exception documented: "IP addresses 
used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider... can be 
registered as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure".

Given the choice provided in the proposal, it seems to me like I could go the 
other way with this and aggregate everything? The end user allocation size 
distinction no longer looks to apply and I could interprete that the "purpose" 
of the whole aggregate is consistent (they are all used to reach "stuff") and 
therefore chose to not register any end user assigned /29s, 28s, /27s etc. 

Does this not contradict other purposes / objectives of the registry, including 
the principles of registering public networks or am I missing something?

Many thanks,
Brian 

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tore 
Anderson
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 12:22 PM
To: Andrii Syrovatko <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
Cc: APEX NCC ORG <[email protected]>; Trifle NOC <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add 
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

* APEX NCC ORG

> Hello, Team!
> I read the offer provided:
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fpolicies%2Fproposals%2F2023-04&data=05%7C01%7
> Cbrian.storey%40gamma.co.uk%7C3a23e9f95d904f83274a08dbad391d6b%7C743a5
> d9f11234f3f8fcf5766b8ad8bf9%7C0%7C0%7C638294233043320645%7CUnknown%7CT
> WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
> 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9dEJGnNWdlapbyyzjM5qgJvn%2BB6G%2BGp6jjmu
> %2FcDzZPY%3D&reserved=0
> three times.
> However, I still don't understand the real reason for introducing the 
> AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status The text of the proposal contains only 
> general provisions.
> Can you provide a more detailed description and examples?

Hi Andrii!

There are several possible examples, but let me give you just one:

Let's say you're a small cloud VPS provider in the business of leasing out 
virtual machines to small businesses and private individuals. Your cloud 
management software dynamically assigns IPv4 addresses out of
192.0.2.0/24 to customers, so you have for example:

192.0.2.1/32 = assigned to Alice's first VM - used for a web server
192.0.2.2/32 = assigned to Bob - used for a Minecraft server
192.0.2.3/32 = assigned to Bob's hair salon business = web server
192.0.2.4/32 = assigned to Alice's second VM - mail server

…and so on.

Current policy requires you to register four individual INETNUM assignments of 
size /32 for the above four virtual machines.

However, due to the GDPR requirements, you usually cannot put Alice's and Bob's 
names or contact info into the RIPE database, so instead you typically 
substitute your own (this is allowed by policy).

That means you have now four individual INETNUMs with identical contact 
information (your own). You need to add or remove these /32 INETNUMs as 
customer VMs come and go. You can automate this, but it is a pointless exercise 
in any case.

To avoid this, we propose allowing you to create a single INETNUM that covers 
the entire 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 range, just like you can already do with any 
IPv6 assignments made to the same VMs. This aggregated object will cover all 
customer VMs in your cloud infrastructure, present and future, and makes it so 
that you don't have to send a RIPE database update every time a customer VM is 
provisioned or discontinued.

Tore

-- 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faddress-policy-wg&data=05%7C01%7Cbrian.storey%40gamma.co.uk%7C3a23e9f95d904f83274a08dbad391d6b%7C743a5d9f11234f3f8fcf5766b8ad8bf9%7C0%7C0%7C638294233043320645%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jtDVwO2J07Os87Tt9U%2BLQ0eg2T%2FDFsDrknEX9fBy41k%3D&reserved=0

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

-- 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg

Reply via email to