Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: So Long Last /8 and Thanks For All the Allocations

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

I see new LIR applications are on the increase as we head towards full IPv4
depletion.  I suspect many are companies with existing LIR status opening
additional LIR accounts to obtain their /22.

I suppose this rate of new LIRs will slow dramatically in the new year when
there are no more IPv4 addresses to be had and in two years time, many of
these "secondary" LIRs will be shut and their resources transferred to the
owners' primary LIR accounts.

One thing that occurs to me is that all of this could represent a
significant slow down of funds into RIPE.  I hope they are taking this into
account in their financial planning, these "opportunist" LIRs bring in a
lot in membership fees.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

Thank you Nikolas, Gert and everyone who contributed to this conversation.
It's good to check that we do all agree.

Aled

[address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

[Aled Morris via address-policy-wg]

Hi all

I'm in the process of helping a startup ISP get RIPE membership and
resources and have hit against a little bit of poor wording in the AS
guidelines RIPE-679, specifically:

*A network must be multihomed in order to qualify for an AS Number.*

The application for an AS number has been delayed because the NCC analyst
working on the ticket is claiming the ISP has to be *already multihomed*
before an AS can be issued.

This interpretation doesn't make any sense to me.  Surely the intention *to
become multihomed* should be the requirement for obtaining an AS number?

I don't even see how you can be properly multihomed if you don't have an AS
number.  Are we supposed to implement some kind of NAT multihoming first?

Can we look to change the wording in RIPE-679 to make this clear?

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

[Aled Morris]

On 21 September 2017 at 12:43, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
>
> The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the
> RIPE NCC
> to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4
> allocation
> directly from the RIPE NCC before.
>


At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free
pool in RIPE's hands?

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers

[Aled Morris]

On 24 March 2017 at 10:43, Jim Reid  wrote:

>
> > On 24 Mar 2017, at 10:29, Dickinson, Ian  wrote:
> >
> > Requiring an ASN to be visible on the public Internet is a non-starter
> IMHO.
>
> +1.
>
> There is no comparable requirement in any of the RIRs which demand LIRs
> make their IP address allocations visible on the Internet. I fail to
> understand why this obligation should apply to ASNs.
>
> It’s not as if we’ll be running out of AS numbers any time soon. What are
> the actual (or perceived?) problems that would be solved by reclaiming the
> ASNs that are not seen in the Internet’s routing tables?
>


+1 from me too.  I've worked in many companies where mergers and
acquisitions resulted in conflicting "private" addressing schemes.

If ASN scarcity was a real problem, it wouldn't be too hard to write an RFC
for 128-bit ASNs.

Aled

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

[Aled Morris]

On 13 June 2016 at 16:15, Sylvain Vallerot 
wrote:

> I agree with this : remaining IPs are not intended to be used as we used
> to.
>
> But they are still meant to be distributed to end users, aren't they ?
>


RIPE-649 "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC
Service Region"

Section 5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs
...
3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.
...


It doesn't say who these assignments are to, they could be to the LIR
itself for their own use (as it will be in the case of end-users who have
become LIRs purely to obtain some "psuedo-PI" address space.)

Aled

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)

[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] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Aled Morris]

On Friday, 10 June 2016, Dominik Nowacki  wrote:

> Aled,
> The data you provided is not relevant.
>
> For example, we have a significant number of Customers who have a number
> of servers with us, are LIRs themselves, but we do BGP for them, as such
> there is a significant number of /22s originated from our AS, yet not
> owned, nor operated by us.
>

I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs
(rather than just taking IP address space from you). From what you say they
don't run their own networks - do they assign resources to their downstream
customers?  Not from the 185/8 allocation obviously.

Aled

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

[Aled Morris]

On 9 June 2016 at 15:04, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Currently we see 414 LIRs that have more than one /22 from the range 185/8
> registered to them.
>

That's quite interesting.

I had a look in the DFZ (as received from Level(3) this afternoon)

I can see 13742 advertisements of space from 185/8, 5 of them are for /21
and 1 is for a /20.  The advertisements include de-aggregations (e.g. a /22
and a /23 for the same prefix)

Looking a the /22 adverts. there are 5613 in the DFZ with 4090 distinct AS
origins.  This means that over 1500 AS's are advertising more than one /22.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Aled Morris]

On 10 May 2016 at 16:17, Jérôme Nicolle  wrote:

> What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well
> maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.
>

My bad, I should have said RIPE could "licence" or "mark as registered" the
/22 address block not "sell".

There is a recurring fee for PI space which I would assume would apply in
this case, and the company obtaining the /22 would also have to find a
sponsor LIR for their assignment.

But again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, just pointing out that
having a growing number of "fake" members, especially ones who do not share
in any way with the ideals and goals of RIPE, could be bad for RIPE as an
organisation in the long term.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Aled Morris]

I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address
space.

Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same
price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who
wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.

It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those
actually committed to performing as LIRs.

I can't imagine this will be a popular suggestion, I'm just putting it out
there.

Aled

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Aled Morris]

OK I see what you are saying now.

One one particular point, I'm as concerned as anyone about the
possibility of bad actors "gaming the system" to get more address
space.  There's no perfect system but if the weight of opinion is that
changing the rules might well make things worse then I agree we
shouldn't do it.

Aled

On 14 April 2016 at 18:29, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:23, Aled Morris <aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6”
>
> I said no such thing.
>
> There are a number of ways for organisations to deal with IPv4 exhaustion. 
> These include (but are not limited to) IPv6 deployment; closing your eyes, 
> sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the problem does not exist; 
> NAT; ALG; acquiring addresses from the secondary market; buying an address 
> holder with lots of unused space; etc, etc. IMO IPv6 deployment seems to be 
> the least worst of these choices but whatever choice someone makes is up to 
> them.   After all, they should know which option works best for their 
> network. YMMV.
>
> My objections to 2015-05 are as follows:
>
> 1) It will deplete the remaining pool of IPv4 space at a faster rate than is 
> sensible or reasonable.
> 2) It will disadvantage new entrants who need IPv4 once the RIRs have run out 
> sooner than they should have done.
> 3) It allows LIRs to continue to ignore the IPv4 run-out because they could 
> just keep going back to the RIR and get yet another IPv4 allocation.
> 4) It disadvantages existing LIRs who have already taken action to address 
> IPv4 exhaustion.
> 5) It enables new and unwelcome ways to scam address space and/or compromise 
> the integrity of the RIPE database.
> 6) There’s no clear problem statement, let alone an explanation how this 
> proposal solves whatever that problem might be or why other solutions are 
> unsuitable. “Some LIRs want to grow their networks and ignore the IPv4 
> run-out” is not a sound problem statement IMO.
> 7) It will discourage address recycling. Why return unused space to IANA or 
> the RIR if they’re just going to give it away to LIRs who can’t/won’t take 
> proper steps to deal with the IPv4 run-out?
>
> There’s no mention of IPv6 in the above list.
>
>> recent LIRs are disadvantaged against established companies with large pools 
>> of IPv4 to fall back on.
>
> Tough. That was then. This is now. The circumstances an policies that 
> prevailed 10-20-30 years ago don’t apply today. We can only do the best (or 
> least-worst) job of allocating the remaining IPv4 space in a fair and 
> reasonable manner. 2015-05 does not achieve that. In fact it does the 
> opposite.
>
>> It simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.
>
> Nobody was saying or even suggesting it was. At least I don’t think anyone 
> was saying that.
>
> Similarly, it simply won’t be possible N years from now for someone to build 
> their IPv6 only network and have connectivity to the legacy Internet unless 
> they can get some IPv4 space.
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Aled Morris]

Sorry Ian I wasn't being personal but I do think the proposal benefits
small LIRs and I have a vested interest in that regard.

The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6"
which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against
proposals like this one means that more recent LIRs are disadvantaged
against established companies with large pools of IPv4 to fall back on.  It
simply isn't possible, today, to build an ISP on an IPv6-only proposition.

Aled

On 14 April 2016 at 17:17, Dickinson, Ian <ian.dickin...@sky.uk> wrote:

> Aled,
>
>
>
> Let’s stop this being specific to my situation. I’m not arguing against
> 2015-05 because I work for a large LIR.
>
>
>
> I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We
> have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done with this unless the text
> changes.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> *From:* Aled Morris [mailto:aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 April 2016 17:00
> *To:* Dickinson, Ian
> *Cc:* Dominik Nowacki; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended
> until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
>
>
>
> Ian,
>
>
>
> This policy isn't going to change the ability of a large organisation to
> grown since the amount of space we're talking about is relatively small,
> and totally trivial to an LIR with (the equivalent of) nearly 700 /22s.
>
>
>
> I don't think the policy fails the test of "fairness" simply because
> larger LIRs won't be getting addresses as the "benefit" of an additional
> /22 would be marginal for them anyway.
>
>
>
> I would hope that large LIRs don't make objections to this proposal just
> because they don't see any benefit to them - that come come across as
> selfish.
>
>
>
> If we limit the allocation of remaining space to brand new LIRs only, it
> means that small ISPs in their first growth spurt might be driven to form a
> second LIR to get that second /22 of space..
>
>
>
> I know companies who've done this.  It isn't sensible.  The proposal makes
> it possible to achieve the sensible result without resorting to stupid
> behaviour.
>
>
>
> Aled
>
>
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged,
> confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views
> expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the
> originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce,
> distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone.
> Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication
> through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are
> trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.
> Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited
> (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited
> (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc
> (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this
> paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same
> registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Aled Morris]

Peter,

I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants
into the market to grow.  Speaking on behalf of such an entity, it's
difficult to grow when you're limited to your one /22 in today's market.
We (as an industry) are not there with IPv6 for this to be the only option.

Ring-fencing 185/8 for new LIRs is sensible, this policy is really about
recycling returned addresses and solves a real problem for a lot of recent
new entrants.

Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this
policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair
mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation.

Aled

On 14 April 2016 at 13:51, Peter Hessler  wrote:

> While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to
> receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the
> simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems
> for new entrants".
>
>
> --
> Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.
>
>