Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016, at 22:50, Aled Morris wrote:

> I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't participate
> (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy process, or any
> of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the RIPE NCC and
> therefore get a vote on budget and board member decisions.

Well, hopefully (depends for who), they don't
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/voting-report).
At least not yet.
But you do have a valid point. Just hope they don't come with the idea
that the NCC should stop following community's policies (and hand things
over to national governments, or decice policies to be followed at the
GM).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Tore Anderson]

* Aled Morris

> So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining
> address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as
> long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end
> users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only
> option to be "become an LIR"

It's not the only option, PI blocks may still be acquired:

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/ipv4/transfer-of-assigned-pi-space

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#IPv6_PI_Assignments

> with the result that we erode the free pool faster
> (i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.)

The simplest way of slowing down the allocation rate is probably to
reduce the allocation size from /22 to either /23 or /24.

Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Aled Morris]

On 11 June 2016 at 21:59, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't
> > participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy
> > process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the
> > RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member
> > decisions.
>
> this may seem a bit strange, but there are isps out there who are
> interested in running a network, and not internet policy, governance,
> and other things about layer seven.  there really are.
>
>
OK if they are Internet Service Providers, but my concern is RIPE are
giving address space to end users, basically because there is no PI
mechanism anymore.

So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining
address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as
long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end
users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only option
to be "become an LIR" with the result that we erode the free pool faster
(i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.)

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Randy Bush]

> I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't
> participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy
> process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the
> RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member
> decisions.

this may seem a bit strange, but there are isps out there who are
interested in running a network, and not internet policy, governance,
and other things about layer seven.  there really are.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Aled,

> Sorry yes, I was clumsy in my wording.

No apologies required! I just wanted to make sure that everybody reading the 
messages (and archives) understands the difference. Some things are obvious for 
people who have been around for some time but can be confusing to those who 
haven't. I was just making sure that everybody understands what is being 
discussed :)

Cheers!
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:14:11PM +0300, NTX NOC wrote:
> About IPv6 - still now in Russia there are no Home ISPs who gives IPv6
> by default to customers. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it.

The "nobody needs it" is a misconception.  Direct your energy there to
make people understand that IPv4 is game over.

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Aled Morris]

On 11 June 2016 at 13:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, at 17:19, Aled Morris wrote:
>
> > I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs
> > (rather than just taking IP address space from you).
>
> Hi,
>
> They have "their own" space, one /22 for them alone.



I agree that's all they want.

Do we really want dozens (hundreds even) of "members" who have no interest
whatsoever in the good of the community, participating in the policy
making, education or technical standards?

Worst case, what if they got together and voted to demutualise RIPE?

Realistically, I'd rather we went back to offering /24 (or less) of PI
space to end users via their existing LIRs rather than burning /22's for
end-users who think they might be missing out if they don't lay claim to
their IPv4 space now.

Many of the ISPs I know are advising their large business customers to
"register with RIPE for IPv4 space" without really bothering to understand,
or caring, they are joining a membership organisation.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[NTX NOC]

On 11.06.2016 21:56, Peter Hessler wrote:
> many operating systems hard-code that range as
> invalid network space.

Could you give any OS examples?

I looks to my Juniper docs and see
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/topic-map/martian-addresses.html

It's not allowed by default but in one click you can make it work
 240.0.0.0/4 orlonger -- allowed

About IPv6 - still now in Russia there are no Home ISPs who gives IPv6
by default to customers. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it.

Yuri

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, NTX NOC wrote:


What does community thinks about it?


People have looked into this before. It's not feasible, not enough client 
OSes support it.


People even tried this in the IETF, lots of years ago:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-indicating-240-addresses-01

IPv4 stone is blead dry. Even if we doubled number of IPv4 addresses by 
means of some unknown magic, it wouldn't buy is any significant amount of 
time.


The solution is IPv6. There is no other way to fix this. Direct your 
energy in that direction.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[Tom Smyth]

Yuri,

I wouldn't have a difficulty with it :) ...   I dont see a reason why it
wouldnt work ... although you would want everyone who is filtering bogons
manually from their routers and the 240.0.0.0/4 has been considered a bogon
for quite some time...  so alot of people who do rudimentary prefix
filtering on their border routers would have to update to make that range
usable ...  I have heard arguments that some Operating systems have that
range filtered out  and is non configurable...

but I doubt the IPv6 adoption advocates ...  or the IPv4  Sellers would
like that idea too much as it would cause the price per ipv4 to
collapse...


I reckon this question has been asked before and I'm sure someone will
point us to that discussion before...

Hope this helps,



On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, NTX NOC  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.
>
> I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
> IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
> use at all but that space could be easy used.
>
> 240.0.0.0/4 Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700
>
> it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
> IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
> free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
> for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!
>
> Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700
>
> Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
> spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
> allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
> such ranges.
>
> What does community thinks about it?
>
> Yuri
>
>


-- 
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] IPv4 reserved space

[Peter Hessler]

Implementation detail: many operating systems hard-code that range as
invalid network space.  The effort to make it available would be _less_
than getting everyone else in the world upgraded to IPv6.



On 2016 Jun 11 (Sat) at 21:45:03 +0300 (+0300), NTX NOC wrote:
:Dear all,
:
:As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.
:
:I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
:IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
:use at all but that space could be easy used.
:
:240.0.0.0/4Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700
:
:it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
:IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
:free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
:for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!
:
:Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?
:
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
:https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700
:
:Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
:spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
:allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
:such ranges.
:
:What does community thinks about it?
:
:Yuri
:

-- 
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?
-- Kelvin Throop III

[address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

[NTX NOC]

Dear all,

As we see ISPs and community would like to have more IPv4 space in use.

I would like to ask a question what do people think about other side of
IPv4 numeration space. Because we have in IPv4 a lot of addresses not in
use at all but that space could be easy used.

240.0.0.0/4 Reserved (former Class E network)   RFC 1700

it's 16 */8 networks. More then 256 Millions of routable and never used
IPv4. 185/8 network has about 6.4M free and total RIPE has about 15M
free IPv4 and we all say 185/8  will be enough for 2-3 years and rest -
for some more time. But 256 M Ipv4 space could be enough for years!

Space reserved for future Use. But will the future come to us or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1700

Is far as I see routers could easy start to use that IP space. People
spend a lot of time and money to get some IPs but not to ask IANA to
allow use this space. Technically it's very easy to start use IPs from
such ranges.

What does community thinks about it?

Yuri