[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Shahin Gharghi]

>
>
>
>
> > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6.
>
> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC?
>

​Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any.
​


>
> > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.
>
> Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control.
>

​RIPE NCC can ease the process.​

​People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community
has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and
they can see the proposals from their own view. ​

​You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the
biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we
have to look at them.
​


-- 
Shahin Gharghi

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Daniel Stolpe]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, remco van mook wrote:


  I hope you understand what we want to achieve. Give a chance to those
  that have registered as LIR after Sept. 2012 to receive a *bit* more
  space from the central registry (as the prices for small allocations via
  the transfer market is really high).
  - would you agree with an other way to achieve this? If yes, please
  share your thoughts on how this proposal could be amended.


Well, sure, why not. I think it's a very bad idea for a whole pile of other 
reasons, but if you were to draft a policy that would allow additional NEEDS 
BASED
allocations to existing LIRs from address space that gets RETURNED to the RIPE 
NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically, allocated pre-2012), that 
would
sound very reasonable, fair and good for competition.  


Yes. That was my idea as well, when we were discussing the last /8 policy: 
that I would have liked to have a "last /8 policy" to be about the "last 
/8", i.e. 185/8 and then the possible other free pool could have been 
treated differently.


But now this seems all overtaken by events and we have left what we have 
left.


The major result of this proposal is likely to be an empty free pool and 
the broker market as the only market.


I do not support this policy.

Cheers,

Daniel

_
Daniel Stolpe   Tel:  08 - 688 11 81   
sto...@resilans.se
Resilans AB Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63
http://www.resilans.se/
Box 45 094
556741-1193
104 30 Stockholm

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Shahin Gharghi  wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6.
>>
>> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC?
>>
>
> ​Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any.
>

I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why
Iran companies can't announce IPv6.


> ​
>
>
>>
>> > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.
>>
>> Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control.
>>
>
> ​RIPE NCC can ease the process.​
>
> ​People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation.
> Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of
> community and they can see the proposals from their own view. ​
>
> ​You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the
> biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we
> have to look at them.
>
> Really ? We are all concerned about IPv6 future here and you think we
should focus on the IPv4 future ? Didn't we all agree that IPv4 is (should
be) dead ?

Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the
largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sylvain Vallerot]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Hi all,

I do not support this proposal.


On 20/10/2015 17:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
> And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco
> and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that
> allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in
> artificially shortening this period.

Agreed, this last being the main reason to oppose the proposal but I agree
with many other reasons exposed, and in particular

- - LIRs created after /8 policy did have the information to take decisions
 and if they did not manage to cope with this, I do not consider future LIR
 creation should be compromised to please them,

- - uniform /22 distribution would be quite unfair and result in a big waste

IMHO A much more interesting proposal to ease access of small opérators (not
to say LIRs because LIRs are just distributors in my mind) would be to have 
the Ripe to regulate the transfer market via anonymization + fixed pricing
(have it equivalent to a LIR creation cost for a /22) or IP garbage 
collection.

Best regards,
Sylvain

- -- 
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYnqWkACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGMnAEAjQUpMTKLmCzHLSAPSQIgFw4C
ubb4Sbgo5p3YkUhYV7gA/iLWKAHUsQrKCLWJcwDZdpsKOy3wYJTgCDfMOyQy2Xgd
=DGf8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write
messages here during all day and increase noise.
21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann" 
написал:

> Hi,
>
> > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
> ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
> >> out, ...?"
> >
> > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
> > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
>
> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants
> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as
> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out.
> What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a
> "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To
> be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a.
> delusional) viewpoint...
>
> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this
> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the
> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help
> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give
> addresses to new entrants.
>
> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only
> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[h . lu]

Hi

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:53 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov  wrote:
> 
> I really envy to all of you that you have so much free time to write messages 
> here during all day and increase noise.
> 

I won't call it noise, a mailing list are there for discussion things about 
certain topic, if you are not interested, you can unsubscribe. 


> 21 окт. 2015 г. 18:48 пользователь "Sander Steffann"  
> написал:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>> >  het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>> >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> >> out, ...?"
>> >
>> > Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
>> > in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
>> 
>> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants 
>> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as 
>> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. 
>> What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" 
>> situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I 
>> think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) 
>> viewpoint...
>> 
>> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
>> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the 
>> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help 
>> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give 
>> addresses to new entrants.
>> 
>> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
>> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> out, ...?"
> 
> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.

The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are 
not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we 
have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we 
have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. 
Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we 
haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...

The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results 
of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while 
still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new 
entrants.

But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[h . lu]

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>>  het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>>> out, ...?"
>> 
>> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
>> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
> 
> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants 
> are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as 
> "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What 
> we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" 
> situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I 
> think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) 
> viewpoint...

+1
> 
> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this 
> special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the 
> results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help 
> people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give 
> addresses to new entrants.

How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, 
and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is 
will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need 
to think about an answer.
> 
> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only 
> discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
> 

[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Shahin Gharghi]

>
> I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why
> Iran companies can't announce IPv6.
>
> ​You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one
upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also
making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open,
brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions.​


Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the
> largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region.
>

​People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't
use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the
IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this
case to ease transfers)
So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more.​


> I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach
> consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions
> problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas
> about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal
> which does that.
>
>
​I'll do my best to submit a proposal.
​


> Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops
> address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the
> community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current
> policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as
> everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs
> in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.
>
> ​I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts,​

​I mean even this /22's can help them.

I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG.
​
-- 
Shahin Gharghi

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:17:08PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Gert Doering:
> >
> > Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from
> > occuring (people will find ways...) 
> 
> Why not? RIPE is the official register and has to act on each transfer. 
> Of course some might "lease" their space instead, [..]

You already described one possible way.  Others exist, but I'm not going
to try to list all of them.

> > (Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got
> > for free - yes.  But do we want to make money on something by selling
> > under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?)
> 
> That's why transfer/ selling should be completely forbidden.

If you try to forbid it, prices will go up, and the registry "which
network is where?" suffers as a consequence.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgpqQNfFXUbJD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:18:44PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't
> care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly
> reflected in the registry.
> 
> If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I
> think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking
> about my chinese "friend")
> 
> Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we
> are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back
> some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price.

I could point out that *this* would very much be "retroactively applying
policy"...

(And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why
the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've
discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better
focus on making good IPv6 policies instead)

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgp8tPTIPQsne.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> (And there would still never be sufficient IPv4, so I think that's why
> the community decided a few years ago to not bother going there - we've
> discussed this at RIPE meetings every now and then, and decided to better
> focus on making good IPv6 policies instead)
>

The point is to speedup ipv6 adoption of the big ISPs by enforcing the return 
of existing ipv4 allocations over the next
few years (tbd, like 10% of the allocated ipv4 space of each LIR per year). As 
a minor side effect everyone could get an
/21 without any problems (which most probably wouldn't then be needed anymore 
anyway).

Corin

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

>> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster.
>> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from
>> the market at prices which will be obviously higher.
>>
> 
> ​And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot
> of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think
> that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them?

RIPE NCC is doing a good job in my opinion shouting every time that
people need to move to IPv6 and that there's no more IPv4, while
preserving enough resources to "feed" newcomers for the following years.
That's the right way to do things, we should not focus on what happens
with RIPE's pool. That's just a small reserve and the era when millions
of IPs were handed out for free is gone.

>> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
>> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
>> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
>> resources.
>>
> 
> ​This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea
> about how bad the situation
>  is
>  in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE
> IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.

Not really, Iran has imported 2,174,464 IPs out of which 1,221,120 came
from Romania. I know a few things about the situation over there but if
the local rules/laws are wrong then it's up to you to change them.

>> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool
>> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and
>> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong.
>>
>>
> ​I agree with you but at least makes it faster.​

Who would benefit from that ? Not your country for sure. The market
prices for IPv4 resources can only go up once RIPE's pool is depleted.
The ones that would benefit are those that sit on piles of IPv4 and
push/wait for prices to go up as they are not satisfied with current
profits. I would benefit indirectly also but it's not my purpose to
drive prices up.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

On 10/21/2015 4:05 PM, Netskin NOC wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica:
>>
>> I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set
>> some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6
>> adoption rate or you have to return 5% from the IPs that were allocated
>> to you before the end of 2006 (so it would be a 10 year frame). Then at
>> the end of 2017 they would need to have 10% IPv6 adoption rate or return
>> 10% of the IPs allocated before the end of 2007 and so on.
>>
> 
> What about a new policy proposal for that? Please let me know if you'd like 
> to work on one together.

If there is support for the idea, then we can come up with a proposal
after making a thorough analysis and think of some efficient
percentages, terms, etc.

>> Something like this would push the "old" ISPs to make the first steps
>> towards IPv6 and would not affect the relatively new entrants whom would
>> not make sense returning 50-100 IPs from their /22.
>>
> 
> The last /22 (or even /21, which everybody can get then easily) shouldn't be 
> affected.

The idea is to promote IPv6 adoption but if we (the community) would get
back enough resources then we can come up with policies to increase the
"minimum guaranteed IPv4 slice" that gets out to everyone.

>> I would support this, although I know it would be very difficult to ask
>> Telefonica to return Orange or Deutsche Telekom return millions of IPs.
>> RIPE NCC is not the police but we can all think of a way to implement
>> this, if the community would support it.
>>
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but from a technical point of view it shouldn't be a problem 
> for RIPE to disconnect them. Any I'm quite
> sure they'll act before that happens.

RIPE NCC can only do what RIPE decides but obviously it has to be legal
so we'll have to consult on all aspects.

Ciprian

[address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran

[Jim Reid]

On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:40, Shahin Gharghi  wrote:

> They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6.

What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC?

> Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.

Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from
> occuring (people will find ways...) 
>

Why not? RIPE is the official register and has to act on each transfer. Of 
course some might "lease" their space
instead, but this puts a significant risk on the user/ customer. I assume many 
users wouldn't want to take that risk and
so the majority of this business is blocked. Together with an enforced return 
of some percent of assigned ipv4 space
every year this would be very effective to push ipv6 adoption significantly.

> 
> (Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got
> for free - yes.  But do we want to make money on something by selling
> under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?)
> 

That's why transfer/ selling should be completely forbidden.

Corin

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't
care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly
reflected in the registry.


If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I
think the situation would have been different (I can't stop thinking
about my chinese "friend")

Maybe it is time to create such policy. It will not be easy but maybe we
are able to come up with some rules that NCC can implement and get back
some of the space that we all know it's just waiting for a better price.

Ciprian


On 10/21/2015 4:06 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:51:58PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote:
>> Unused space has to be returned to the registry for free, as the initial
>> requirements for the assignment are no longer met. 
> 
> These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such
> a policy for allocations.  Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return
> of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go
> out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything.
> 
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Gert Doering:
>
> These are *allocations* and not assignments, and there has never been such
> a policy for allocations.  Repeat: there is no policy that mandates return
> of unused allocations, and no mandate from the community for the NCC to go
> out and pester allocation holders to voluntarily return anything.
> 

Sorry, if I mixed it up. I really think it's time for such a policy then.

Corin

[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Shahin Gharghi]

Hello

I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you
should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the
LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them.
If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I
 think it could reduce amount of unnecessary  transfers.
I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I
think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have
access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or
imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it
now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6.


-- 
Shahin Gharghi

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you
> should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the
> LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them.
> If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I
>  think it could reduce amount of unnecessary  transfers.
> I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I
> think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have
> access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or
> imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it
> now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6.
> 
> 

If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster.
It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from
the market at prices which will be obviously higher.

Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
resources.

I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool
will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and
everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong.

Ciprian Nica

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Tom Smyth]

My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer
/merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in
my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for
new lirs in future ...
Do you  love it now ;) ?
On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica"  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
> > Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter
> > condition on the transfers, ie
> >
> > that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry,  (in
> > addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its
> > registry)
>
> So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they
> don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE.
>
> Yes, that would make everyone love this policy.
>
> Ciprian
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 12:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica:
>
> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
> resources.
>

Imo the transfer market was a really bad idea. I assume there are many ISPs 
with lots of unused space just waiting for
the prices getting even higher. Why return a free lunch? Transfer/ selling of 
ipv4 space should simply be forbidden. In
addition big ipv4 space holders should be forced to return ex. 10% of their 
ipv4 per year. This way the BIG providers
(new and existing) would be forced to act and implement ipv6. And these are the 
only one able to really drive ipv6 adoption.

Corin

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Randy Bush:
>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
> 

Most probably only for those who make a living out of this transfer business ;)

Corin

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

> That's exactly my point. The current policy is mostly against new providers 
> (I know many think it's a policy to help
> them). What about my previous suggestion, like a policy to force ipv4 space 
> holders to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per
> year. Money/ effort involved with the transition is no valid concern against 
> it, because the same would hold true for
> the /21 limit for new LIRs.

I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set
some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6
adoption rate or you have to return 5% from the IPs that were allocated
to you before the end of 2006 (so it would be a 10 year frame). Then at
the end of 2017 they would need to have 10% IPv6 adoption rate or return
10% of the IPs allocated before the end of 2007 and so on.

Something like this would push the "old" ISPs to make the first steps
towards IPv6 and would not affect the relatively new entrants whom would
not make sense returning 50-100 IPs from their /22.

I would support this, although I know it would be very difficult to ask
Telefonica to return Orange or Deutsche Telekom return millions of IPs.
RIPE NCC is not the police but we can all think of a way to implement
this, if the community would support it.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Netskin NOC]

Am 21.10.2015 um 14:20 schrieb Ciprian Nica:
> From theese, the top 1% PA resource holders (117 organisations) have
> allocations totalling 363,535,872 IPs out of the total 575,180,544
> ALLOCATED PA IPs in RIPE region. (that is 63.20%)
> 
> If the remaining 99% percent would fully deploy IPv6 then the region's
> average would be at 36.80%, which would not be enough to make us forget
> about IPv4.
> 
> Therefore, in my oppinion, this is not a problem that can be solved by
> the many but by the few top providers. Think about policies that would
> "drive them to drive us all" towards IPv6 adoption. That would really help.
> 

That's exactly my point. The current policy is mostly against new providers (I 
know many think it's a policy to help
them). What about my previous suggestion, like a policy to force ipv4 space 
holders to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per
year. Money/ effort involved with the transition is no valid concern against 
it, because the same would hold true for
the /21 limit for new LIRs.

Corin

[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Shahin Gharghi]

>
>
>
> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster.
> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from
> the market at prices which will be obviously higher.
>

​And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot
of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think
that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them?
​


>
> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
> resources.
>

​This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea
about how bad the situation
 is
 in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE
IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions.
​​

>
> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool
> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and
> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong.
>
>
​I agree with you but at least makes it faster.​


-- 
Shahin Gharghi

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

> Don't get me wrong, but I think we are in some kind of dilemma here. Many 
> knew this would become a free lunch, so why
> vote against it?

Policies are adopted through consensus so we can asume that at the time
of adoption any policy was what (most of) the community wanted.


> "With great power comes great responsibility.". Unused space has to be 
> returned to the registry for free, as the initial
> requirements for the assignment are no longer met. RIPE should audit and 
> enforce it - just start by grabbing all
> listings on the transfer market *g*.

Yes, I'm waiting for Santa Claus, too. Unfortunately our capitalist
society is mostly profit-driven so we have to live with it whether we
like it or not. Go to Daimler and tell them that. Will they return any
of the 16,7 million IPs that they hold (53.0.0.0/8) ? I remember (I hoep
I'm not wrong) that RIPE NCC has contacted UK DWP a few years ago about
their /8 and they said they can't return any of the IPs. This year they
started to monetize a few million IPs already.

> It's not against your business, it's against the current policies.

The policies are adopted by the community and represent the best
decisions that could have been taken at that time. Of course things
changes and sometimes policies need to be changed. However I don't think
the current proposal would bring any good change.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 03:11:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can
> control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE
> (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the
> pain on those who really need IPv4 resources.

Well, the most important reason was that we can't stop transfers from
occuring (people will find ways...) but that *if* a resource is transferred,
we must be able to document *where it went*.

Since the IPv4 run-out, the primary function of the RIPE NCC has shifted
from "hand out IPv4 addresses" to "registry", and this is more important
than ever.

(Of course one could frown on people making money on something they got
for free - yes.  But do we want to make money on something by selling
under the hand, for a higher price, and no guarantees to the buyer?)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgpodXCdTQ4yn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

So it would be ok to sell as long as you don't make a living out of it :)

The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can
control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE
(community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the
pain on those who really need IPv4 resources.

Do you think that UK's DWP would have ever given resources from their /8
to the community if there were no millions to make out of it ? Maybe
some would be willing to give the IPs back to the community but usually
there are some internal costs to release them.

And if you are refering to brokers like me, we are only intermediating
transactions, most of us are just creating links between buyers and
sellers and assist them to properly complete the transactions. Yes we
are making a living out of it but it's for the benefit of both seller
and buyer and we don't make the decisions on their behalf.


On 10/21/2015 2:40 PM, Netskin NOC wrote:
> Am 21.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Randy Bush:
>>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
>>
> 
> Most probably only for those who make a living out of this transfer business 
> ;)
> 
> Corin
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Uros Gaber]

Hi,

I would support this proposal with some amendments, first there should be a
'top-cap' on how many IPs a LIR can have and still request a new /22 every
18 months - for example if a LIR has an /20 equivalent or more already
assigned this LIR could not request new allocation (this has already been
pointed out on the list) and I think that there should also be a minimum
RIPE free space cap, where if we would reach somewhere in the range of /12
only new LIRs are eligible to get new /22 allocation.

This is to get new entrants in the market some more wiggle room against the
old players.

Sincerely,
Uros

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ciprian Nica  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you
> > should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close
> the
> > LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them.
> > If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs,
> I
> >  think it could reduce amount of unnecessary  transfers.
> > I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I
> > think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have
> > access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6?
> or
> > imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it
> > now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6.
> >
> >
>
> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster.
> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from
> the market at prices which will be obviously higher.
>
> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
> resources.
>
> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool
> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and
> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong.
>
> Ciprian Nica
>
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Tom Smyth]

Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter
condition on the transfers, ie

that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry,  (in
addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its
registry)



On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Uros Gaber  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would support this proposal with some amendments, first there should be
> a 'top-cap' on how many IPs a LIR can have and still request a new /22
> every 18 months - for example if a LIR has an /20 equivalent or more
> already assigned this LIR could not request new allocation (this has
> already been pointed out on the list) and I think that there should also be
> a minimum RIPE free space cap, where if we would reach somewhere in the
> range of /12 only new LIRs are eligible to get new /22 allocation.
>
> This is to get new entrants in the market some more wiggle room against
> the old players.
>
> Sincerely,
> Uros
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ciprian Nica 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/2015 1:26 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you
>> > should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close
>> the
>> > LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them.
>> > If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other
>> LIRs, I
>> >  think it could reduce amount of unnecessary  transfers.
>> > I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I
>> > think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have
>> > access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6?
>> or
>> > imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it
>> > now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster.
>> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from
>> the market at prices which will be obviously higher.
>>
>> Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new
>> entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate
>> according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4
>> resources.
>>
>> I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool
>> will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and
>> everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong.
>>
>> Ciprian Nica
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
-
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL
This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged.
The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail
immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the
company's  .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of
any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be
communicated in
writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening
any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage
which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Randy Bush]

> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

[Ciprian Nica]

The way you said it was like you were referring to anyone that bought
IPs from the market.

What you are proposing is impossible to implement and still won't save
this policy. It's difficult to find a "better fairness" today and I
don't see a way this policy would help anyone except a few small...ish
providers.


On 10/21/2015 2:33 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
> My point was that if people have used mechanisims such as new lir +transfer
> /merge then they would not qualify for an additional alocation ... which in
> my opinion is fair enough...and would still conserve ip address space for
> new lirs in future ...
> Do you  love it now ;) ?
> On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica"  wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote:
>>> Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there was a stricter
>>> condition on the transfers, ie
>>>
>>> that the Lir has not had any transfered IPs added to its registry,  (in
>>> addtition to the rule that the Lir has not transferred IPs out of its
>>> registry)
>>
>> So if some LIR needed IPs desperately enough to pay money for them, they
>> don't deserve to receive a free allocation from RIPE.
>>
>> Yes, that would make everyone love this policy.
>>
>> Ciprian
>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Garry Glendown]

Hi,

considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
- I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
"fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
1000 right now is definitely a pain!)

So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
the  /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:

Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
IPs most.

Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.

I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
/22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
cost or even turning a profit ...

-garry

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[LIR (BIT I 5)]

Hi,
I'm against this proposal. It seems that economic interests are the main reason 
for that. From my personal point of view: with IPv6 there is a good replacement 
solution to connect network devices. So there is no need to offer IPv4 
addresses in a larger amount from the RIR.
Best,
Carsten

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag 
von Marco Schmidt
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 14:47
An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 
Allocation Criteria)

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria", is now 
available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
 before 18 November 2015.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[George Giannousopoulos]

Hi,

Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space,
I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to
very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried
to avoid.

In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against
the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be
available to new entrants for the next few years.

The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8,
is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we
shouldn't relax it.

For these reasons I don't support this proposal.

--
George

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
> the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
> - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
> "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
> appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
> for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
> actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
> somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
> to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
> organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
> migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
> only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
> 1000 right now is definitely a pain!)
>
> So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
> the  /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
> certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:
>
> Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
> to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
> otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
> LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
> months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
> could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
> remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
> IPs most.
>
> Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
> entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
> the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.
>
> I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
> duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
> guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
> people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
> instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
> their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
> increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
> /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
> off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
> cost or even turning a profit ...
>
> -garry
>
>