Re: [address-policy-wg] New RIPE Labs Article: "IPv6 Stockpiling: A Trojan Horse in Our Midst?"

[Randy Bush]

> Together with my colleague Rene Wilhelm, I have just published an
> article on the interesting phenomenon of IPv6 stockpiling and its
> implications for the Internet ecosystem in our region.
> 
> You can find the article here:
> https://labs.ripe.net/author/marco_schmidt/ipv6-stockpiling-a-trojan-horse-in-our-midst/

brilliant.  luckily, IPv6 space is effectively infinite, or so i read on
the internet .

as one of the proposers (with pfs, and props to anne lord who helped
first propose it in apnic) of the IPv4 last /8 policy, i deeply regret
not including strong hoarding/greed damping measures.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] @EXT: Inputs/observations from EUROPOLon proposal 2023-04

[Randy Bush]

hi,

2023-04 Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments (which you
may have mis-understood) aside, i am intellectually curious, but ianal,
and i try not to play one on the net.

i think i understand your concerns to a fair extent.  the more and more
accurate data leo can access without a court order makes life easier for
leo.  and, as a security guy who occasionally has to call leo, i have
some sympathy for leo here.  though in the extreme, we have a police
state.  but take anything to the extreme and it is silly.  my point is
that there is a spectrum.

but as a privacy guy, i am interested in the tension between that and
the privacy and data protection initiatives on which the eu seems to be
in the lead (congrats).  even operationally, we have a tension between
privacy and data such as location (see geoloc: discussion), identity
(whois), this proposal, etc.

as i said, ianal, but i think the slow and frustrating court order is
meant to dump that tradeoff on a judge.  here, in our nerdy way, we're
trying to automate it, but have the same tensions.

so i wonder if you could shed some light on where you see the tradeoff
here.

randy, trying to move from positions to a conversation

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Address Policy WG Co-Chair - James Kennedy Steps Down

[Randy Bush]

> We have informed you in September about the fact that James Kennedy is
> moving into a new role at the RIPE NCC
> 
> We have found a willing participant from the community to help us fill
> the gap and join the AP-WG Chair collective.

between those two, was there a call for volunteers?

> Because we still have two co-chairs there is no immediate need to
> recruit a replacement. Instead, we'd like to encourage anyone
> considering joining the team to contact us to discuss what is
> involved.

that looks more like "we do not seek volunteers," and a strong singal
discouraging new blood.

fwiw, i an a long term alex fan.  but i have enough german ancestry to
be over fond of process.  we really need to be careful of unintentional
gatekeeping.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for?

[Randy Bush]

> We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE
> Database issues.

perhaps wg members are deterred by the walls of text with strong
directives and opinions from a dominating co-chair (who lost the
election but somehow is still here)?

nothing the db wg does is worth the effort and pain, so we just go
have coffee and get back to work.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)

[Randy Bush]

> The proposal looks ok to me.

+1

i could nit pick, but will refrain.

ramdy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)

[Randy Bush]

nick,

> 2. what is a "special circumstance"?

maybe "unforseen" would be better?  from an old CII preso

If it was part of the “plan” it’s an event, if it is not then
it’s a “disaster”

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)

[Randy Bush]

leo

> As a reminder, this proposal would set "the minimum assignment size to
> a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by
> the End User.

i tried a similar proposal some years back.  it was shot down.  so i
guess i have to support this incarnation.  good luck.

( i have schadenfreude that ipv6's hope for success is schadenfreude
  about ipv4 :)

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)

[Randy Bush]

> This part of the proposal is intended to foster the adoption of the
> technology.

i think they should not get space unless they serve me a really tasty
paella

or, less obliquely, could we please keep religion out of operating the
internet?

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2022-02 New Policy Proposal (Remove mandatory IPv4 PA assignment registration in the RIPE Database)

[Randy Bush]

>>> Again we are back to asking the question, "What is the purpose of
>>> the RIPE Database in 2022?".
>> in this case, same as it ever was.  same as it ever was.
> And you may ask yourself “what is this RIPE database?”

but it is not once in a lifetime.  this mind-game of omphaloskepsis
repeatedly drags us into the water flowing underground.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2022-02 New Policy Proposal (Remove mandatory IPv4 PA assignment registration in the RIPE Database)

[Randy Bush]

> Again we are back to asking the question, "What is the purpose of the
> RIPE Database in 2022?".

in this case, same as it ever was.  same as it ever was.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Block/Suspend sanctions on address space.

[Randy Bush]

> Again, the main point is to ensure the speedy management of the
> current issue by RIPE NCC in line with its policies and the EU
> positions

knowing the ncc and its legal team a bit, i am confident they are
doing so.  not being a lawyer myself, my opinion on how and what
they should do is not worth any pixels.

[ fwiw, i taught in kyiv in the mid-'90s, am horrified for ukraïna
  and all of eastern europe and the world.  as we, amerika, are
  demonstrating with trump, there are few animals as dangerous as a
  delusional wounded megalomaniac. ]

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Block/Suspend sanctions on address space.

[Randy Bush]

it would help me at least if folk giving legal opinions could make clear
in what juristriction they are an actual lawyer?  thanks.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

> I *do* like the suggestion Daniel Karrenberg made how to tackle this -
> give the NCC more liberty how to handle "experiments" by consulting,
> if needed, with an expert panel.  I do see the issue in defining
> "expert", but maybe this could be made sufficiently lightweight - "ask
> for a volunteer group of individuals that have had hands-on experience
> with BGP routing for  years" (because, I think, that's really the
> crucial part here, to differenciate from other setups that can do the
> 50% just fine, or use RFC1918 space instead).

you are a (new) LIR applying for IP space.  you submit an addressing
plan.  the ncc convenes a volunteer panel of your competitors to
evaluate that plan.  oops!

tragically, research is competitive, and the ideas are the protein.

[ fyi, i admit to being just a shill here.  it was reg services who
  asked for help on the issue. ]

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

erik,

> I think that the time for the temp assignment to be made, stretched to
> 1 year or more, will become an issue for the NCC to work with.

the current policy allows the ncc to go up to a year

> Not only of the point that Gert made, but also because it will make
> the life of the IPRA's must harder with the time that we add..

actually, it is the reg folk who raised these issues to me

> As we can also expect more requests to be made, if the policy would be
> changed ...

this statement might benefit from some explanation

> As this is for research .. have you considered working with other
> research networks that hold large amount of numbers because they were
> NIR's before RIPE was setup ?

i can not speak for other researchers.  but when my work can be done
with existing allocations we use them, of course.  we have done this a
lot.  in the particular case i hit, the nature of the experiment
required space directly delegated from the ncc.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

>> for a research experiment, we wanted eight or a dozen routable, i.e.
>> /24, prefixes which we would announce from various places in the
>> topology.  each /24 would have one pingable address, let's assume .42.
> 
> This is a tough nut.
> 
> I can totally see what you do, and understand what space you need, and
> for which times.
> 
> OTOH, I can totally see the NCC being worried about people claiming
> "experiments!  and I need a review!" and running their ISP for a year
> on temporary space - and with the argument "I want a dozen routable
> /24s", you can get quite some ISP work done.

the current policy requires description, documentation, ... already.
this point merely adds to the spec to allow the ncc to issue frags if
a block is not needed.

> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

nope

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

mornin' leo

>> - the address space MUST be returned to the NCC as clean or cleaner
>>   than when it was loaned out
> 
> This is a nice idea. Do you have a practical proposal for
> implementation?

depends on if/how you mess it up.  and if you can not describe this to
the ncc reg folk, they should not give you the space.

camper saying" if you pack it in, pack it out

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

two additional good ideas contributed by an anonymous donor:

- requests should differentiate whether the need is for a block or
  whether scattered (routable?) addgress space would do.  e.g. a
  meeting might prefer a block, a routing experiment separate /24s

- the address space MUST be returned to the NCC as clean or cleaner
  than when it was loaned out

randy

-- 

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

[address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

[Randy Bush]

ok, i did it again, tried to fit a square peg in a round hole.  while
the immediate problem is past, thanks to the ncc reg folk, i fear that
we could benefit from thinking a bit more about $subject.

for a research experiment, we wanted eight or a dozen routable, i.e.
/24, prefixes which we would announce from various places in the
topology.  each /24 would have one pingable address, let's assume .42.

because this is ops based research, we have to
  o go through the ncc bureaucrazy
  o actually deploy and test
  o run the measurements for a few months
  o do the analysis
  o possibly tune or vary the experiment
  o write the paper and submit it
  o wait three months for the accept/reject
  o if rejected, retune and submit to a different venue
  o the reviewers may ask for us to re-run to get fresh data for
publication
  o whine whine
this takes six to twelve months.

if you are familiar with $subject, you will sense there are two problems
here.  587 is designed for a much shorter time window, and it kind of
assumes more that 1:256 utilisation.

you can imagine that my request to registration services generated a bit
of discussion :).  as our social environment has become less tolerant,
reg services understandably wants simple rules they can follow and which
clearly justify their actions.  and geeks such as i just want our mtv
:).

i suspect we may be able to wordsmith conditions to deal with the time
length issue.  but i suspect that codification of guidelines covering
the needs & justifications for research experiments, folk qualifying
strange devices, and those doing other weird things will not be so easy.

i am considering a policy proposal in this space; but want to learn what
others see and think, and to see if it is worth the time and effort.

and can we please keep discussion focused on temporary address space
assignments?

thanks.

randy


-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

[Randy Bush]

> Sander was right though: we're talking about rearranging the deck
> chairs on the Titanic

any betting pool on how many years the titanic will be the only viable
ship of entry for newcomers?  i'll take a decade.

no, we don't like it.  and it goes against the loudest religion.  but
packets gotta move; and users just want their mtv.

oh little snail
climb mt fuji

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

[Randy Bush]

>>> C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing
>>> allocations for the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting
>>> with zero, the higher the priority.
>>
>> if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR
>> with any existing allocation be given more?
> 
> That would only happen if there are zero new entrants, as an LIR with any
> existing allocation would have a lower priority on the waiting list.

i asked why, not how.  imiho, the list should be for *new* entrants,
period.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

[Randy Bush]

> C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing allocations for
> the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting with zero, the higher
> the priority.

if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR
with any existing allocation be given more?

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

[Randy Bush]

> I think that I speak for the WG, that the intent for the final /8
> policy and the waitinglist policy, is to provide IPv4 (at least a
> small bit) to newcomers

as a co-author of that polocy, my memory is indeed the intent was to
allow newcomers to get a small bit of space for as long as possible.

> If a change would be desired by the WG, it should go through the PDP,
> meaning that a policy change would be required.
>
> -42 (13%) are from members with 2-4 LIRs accounts
> -45 (14%) are from members with 5-9 LIR accounts
> -157 (48%) are from members with 10 or more LIR accounts

this inclines me to offer to work with others on an update to the
policy.  gert's suggestion is interesting.

randy

-- 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

[Randy Bush]

> The most sensible approach in the circumstances is leave it and move
> on.

considering it is his birthday, WWRS?  i suspect about what you just
said.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfer Markets Misuse: A First Look

[Randy Bush]

> In this article Vasileios Giotsas summarises the results of a detailed
> study of how transferred IPv4 prefixes are misused in the wild by
> synthesising an array of longitudinal IP blacklists, honeypot data, and
> AS reputation lists:
> 
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/vgiotsas/a-first-look-at-the-misuse-and-abuse-of-ipv4-transfer-markets

an interesting read, and looks to be a solid analysis.  as a researcher,
i like it a lot.  as an operator, i am not sure what the heck we can do
about it.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette

[Randy Bush]

> You are, however, running for election in which I and other members
> get to vote.
> 
> Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind is going to vote for
> you after this childish and highly unprofessional behaviour?

well, i imagine he may get a few votes just to piss ron g off :)

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette

[Randy Bush]

plonk

Re: [address-policy-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC Executive Board election

[Randy Bush]

perhaps, instead of really rude ad homina, you could try to be
constructive by finding and nominating a really excellent candidate
or two.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Extended Review Period has ended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

[Randy Bush]

>> And if you do agree with the policy moving forward, please let it
>> know in the Last Call phase as well, as it is easier for us as
>> Chairs to call consensus or not, if we have some response.
> 
> I support this going forward.

/me 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Review Phase Extended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

[Randy Bush]

sorry.  as it has not changed, my opinion has not ( yes, sometimes it
does :).  so i still support it.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: ASNs of organizations in reported IPv4 transfers

[Randy Bush]

> Because it's not rational or meaningful to do that. There's no reason
> to assume that there's a static, unchanging binding between address
> space and an ASN.

if there was, we would not need routing :)

further, there is no actual _routing_ binding of an AS to a member LIR
identity.  i.e. an LIR may have no ASs, or multiple ASs.  address space
'belonging' to an LIR might be legitimately announced by an AS belonging
to a different LIR.

from a research point of view, one might ask whether these confounding
complications are sufficiently prevalent to obscure the signal which
vasileios seeks.

[ persoanlly, i would not go down this capybara hole ]

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

[Randy Bush]

brian,

>> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg.
> I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all,
> why? 

i am only in mild support of it.  i am in strong unsupport of everything
being recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such.  We are not the net
police and should resist inclinations to be come such.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

[Randy Bush]

i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

[Randy Bush]

>> how about /24.5?  :)
> Brilliant idea ;)

back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for,
and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space.  i probably have the record of
it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

[Randy Bush]

> I strongly agree with Nick and support version 2.0. No need to produce
> a revision changing the default away from /24.

how about /24.5?  :)

enough already.  ship it.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

[Randy Bush]

hi carlos,

> My understanding (and i'm not a lawyer, so i won't risk any comments
> about liability) is that the RIPE NCC can't force anything to a Legacy
> Resource Holder, outside the established contract for services
> provision. That one, also states the possibility for the RIPE NCC to
> stop providing said services -- but this doesn't mean
> de-registering. In practice, it means no access to the Certification
> service. Not sure about reverse DNS, though...

the actual paperwork does, well did two months ago, include an *option*
for the ncc to stop providing reverse dns.  i suspect they would not
exercise the option except in egregious circumstances.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

[Randy Bush]

> Legacy resources don’t fall under the contractual obligations that we
> as a community have setup. Financial or policy, unless decided/afreed
> upon by legacy resources themselves.

in a police state, there is no concern for contractual obligations

from the ncc 'certifying' net engs to proposals such as this, we are
heading down a very slippery slope.

we are not, well at least should not be, the net police or regulatory
body.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

[Randy Bush]

> https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/

nice

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

[Randy Bush]

>> Hmm.. why shouldn't defunct IXPs not be taken in consideration
>> though?
> Because they will have handed back their address space.

what are you trying to measure?  the space utilization of current
operating exchanges, or the distribution of request sizes?

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

[Randy Bush]

> In this specific case would you call the NCC "the police", or would
> you classify who informs the NCC as "the police"...? :-)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Leben_der_Anderen

Re: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG meeting in Reykjavik

[Randy Bush]

>> perhaps, as it is, imiho, more address policy than anti-spam, the
>> anti-abuse wg proposal 2019-03
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
>> would be worth a bit of consideration as address policy?
> We'll certainly give a HEADS UP to the AP WG

that is all i was suggesting.  apologies, carlos, if you took it as
more.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG meeting in Reykjavik

[Randy Bush]

perhaps, as it is, imiho, more address policy than anti-spam, the
anti-abuse wg proposal 2019-03

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03

would be worth a bit of consideration as address policy?

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)

[Randy Bush]

> Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" is now in
> the Review Phase.

/me supports

we are here to do what we can to make the internet work.  this helps by
making connectivity as available as possible given the circumstances.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

[Randy Bush]

> But how tenable is it both in principle and in 'Internet governance'
> terms for the NCC to collect fragmentlets of IPv4 and just sit on
> them?

not.  many will have sharp edges.  :)

> So we need a policy to allocate them in a useful manner.
> 
> The question before us is: What is the minimum useful allocation?

today, that is a /24, as we all know.  an experiment has shown issues
with propagation of longer prefixes, no surprise.  but, as i have
suggested for some years, we will eventually have to remove that
barrier.

but this proposal just speaks to /24s.  and it makes sense for now.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] What we want to be acceptable in IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI?

[Randy Bush]

> So the focus needs to be "what is an IPv6 PI policy that is useful for
> the RIPE region".
> 
> Wether or not this is the same as what we had for IPv4 in the past is
> only of historic relevance.

after all, as humans have proven time and time again, we have nothing
to learn from history :)

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

[Randy Bush]

hi gert,

> I'm fairly sure Randy tried to politely bring across the message that
> "we had a global registry first, and then split it up into regional
> IRs, because that's what made sense, and still does".

well, i could have been polite :)

and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the split still makes
sense.  do the regional empires really improve the operators' life?

and, while indeed this is being discussed in lacnic, it does affect the
ripe region.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

[Randy Bush]

> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en 

i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history

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

[Randy Bush]

>>> They are beyond help
>> 
>> not at all.  the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and
>> other NATs of many flavors.
> 
> Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation policy point of
> view" :)

sorry.  but having spent blood and tears on ipv6 deployment for over 20
years, watching ipv6 zealots create a massive NAT market really really
hurts.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot
> still use a v6 prefix ;)

interesting to see the whole trail.

Received: from psg.com ([2001:418:1::62])
by ran.psg.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.86_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1dvx51-000885-77
for ra...@ran.psg.com; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:55:39 +
Received: from [2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372] (helo=mahimahi.ripe.net)
by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from )
id 1dvx50-000K7L-8w
for ra...@psg.com; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:55:38 +
Received: from titi.ripe.net ([193.0.23.11])
by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps 
(TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89)
(envelope-from )
id 1dvx4r-000Am2-6a; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:55:31 +0200
Received: from chouchou.ripe.net ([193.0.19.37])
by titi.ripe.net with esmtps 
(TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.89)
(envelope-from )
id 1dvx4q-0008Iz-TD; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:55:28 +0200
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=chouchou.ripe.net)
by chouchou.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1dvx4q-0002yO-O6; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:55:28 +0200
Received: from mahimahi.ripe.net ([2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1372])
 by chouchou.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from ) id 1dvx4p-0002yI-Oa
 for address-policy...@lists.ripe.net; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:55:27 +0200
Received: from ran.psg.com ([2001:418:8006::18])
 by mahimahi.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dvx4o-000Alk-Lk
 for address-policy-wg@ripe.net; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:55:27 +0200
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net)
 by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2)
 (envelope-from )
 id 1dvx4l-00087z-Nh; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:55:24 +

as i said, thanks to NTT i have no ipv6 at home.  but it goes v6 as soon
as it hits my outbound smtp server, arrives at the ncc over ipv6,
bounces around within the ncc over ipv4, and then exits the ncc over
ipv6

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

[ generally good analysis ]

> The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is
> for documented and needed v6 transitions services

do not make rules you can not measure or enforce.  it weakens the
credibility of the rest of the structure.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity,

it's a business decision, and probably has many factors behind it.  you
and i might think it unwise, but 'insanity' is a bit in the weeds.

> They are beyond help

not at all.  the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and
other NATs of many flavors.  i just don't like the result.

but, as i said, we have demonstrated time and again that we can not
seriously affect the tragically slow deployment of ipv6.  so i do not
make decisions based on changing that.

>> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot
>> still use a v6 prefix ;)

same here, darn it.  welcome to NTT B-Flets land.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

>> When do we distribute 240/4 among the RIRs as "really last /8s"?
> 
> I made that question myself during an ICANN meeting (the only i
> attended) 10 years ago. The answer was something about operating
> systems' stacks. I wasn't fully convinced, but a large majority of
> internet plumbers seems to buy it...

analogous to one's need for ipv4 reachability until the last ipv4 sites
die out, if any equipment does not properly route and forward 240/4 then
there will be folk who can not reach those with addresses drawn from
that space.

darned shame but we do need universal reachability.

we do not have a good track record for addressing architectures.  check
out rfc 2450 when you have not eaten recently.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

>> as a friend wrote privately
>> I would be interested to have a person who is 16 years old reply:
>> "I am planning to open my own internet company in 4 years; can you
>> please save some address space for me, 'til I finish high school?"
>> But of course, there is no such person on the RIPE mailing list..
>> and we are responsible to those 14 year olds.
> If he has the money to become a RIPE LIR right out of school

he?  wrong.

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

[Randy Bush]

> I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify
> /22.

i think there are a vast number of entities which could justify a /16.
so?  there is this little problem. 2^32 is bounded.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

it might be wise to avoid the eternal rat-hole of what will and will not
increase ipv6 deployment.  whether we like it or not, and whether we
excoriate the folk who have not deployed or not, history has shown that
we do not know.

there are no more 32-bit integers.  ipv6 is horrifyingly and tragically
slow to deploy.  get over it.  get a life.

those of us who have been around a while have heard it all before.
raise your hand if you remember when 3gpp was going for force global
ipv6 deployment.  shall i start down the list of the other things?

[ remember my $dayjob deployed in 1997 and my co-worker wrote the kame
stack on which many of your ipv6 implementations are based. ]

the point here is simple.  the ripe community has a responsibility to
the human community beyond the members of this list.  as a friend wrote
privately

I would be interested to have a person who is 16 years old reply:

"I am planning to open my own internet company in 4 years; can you
please save some address space for me, 'til I finish high school?"

But of course, there is no such person on the RIPE mailing list..

and we are responsible to those 14 year olds.

it is called stewardship.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

>> do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not
>> yet asked for a final /22?
> So, 13950 /22s between Q4/2012 and today, hence i would say your
> answer is around 2404 LIRs (16354-13950).

i tend to agree with the suggestion that folk with ipv4 space already
are not eligible

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> Then they have to buy addresses in the market. I keep running into
> people who claim "look, RIPE is not out of IPv4 addresses, the IPv4
> exhaustion is just a hype/FUD".

people will say all sorts of stupid things; funny monkeys we are.  this
does not mean we should use technology to teach morality lessons.  it
has not worked out too well when tried.

> They won't stop until RIPE is really out.

and of course they will find nothing else to complain about, accuse, try
to scam, ...  and cash will fall from the sky.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

a bit of history for those with short term vision

1995, and large providers were running out of ram to hold the table.
sprint was the closest to the edge and falling over; but others were
not far behind and could smell the coffee.  these were the days
where we all intimately knew each others' networks.

nobody's management was gonna pay to upgrade hundreds of routers.
sean had to filter to keep from crashing.  others, such as asp and
i, were also filtering, as much to keep the table down as to protect
from idiots such as vinnie from killing us (7007 incident).

so the providers who were concerned and the rirs met at the danvers
ietf and agreed to only let /19s and shorter, and swamp space /24s,
through if the rirs would please not allocate longer prefixes for a
couple of years until routers could be upgraded.  rfc 2050 was the
result.

eventually, like six yesrs later, customers complained enough that
the filters had to be removed.  when a big customer or two wanted to
get to someone with a /24 in old B space, the filters fell.
business wins.

when v4 runout forces folk to put /28s in frnt of nats, the folk with
shiny shoes will have a little chat with senior leadership, and they'll
cough up the bucks to hold the routes.  history repeats.

like the ethernet mfrs tell us that we need to use 4g, 40g, ... instead
of 10g, 100g, 1tb, ... life adds zeros.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the
> run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?

and you believe that there will be zero desirable ipv4 destinations on the
internet by then?  sure does not look like it as far as i can see.

and if a new entrant needs to reach the remaining ipv4 internet, ...?

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger.

see the section on abrogating our responsibilities for stewardship

if ipv6 can not seel itself, all the pressure will do is make even more
nats.  we don't really want that.

oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy.

well

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

[Randy Bush]

> Over half of the table is made-up of /24s; that is not a coincidence.

once it was /19.  welcome to life.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> You're correct in saying that APWG does not deal with pricing, but
> it's a bit jesuitical not to acknowledge that the practical impact of
> this policy change will be a dramatic increase in RIR-allocated ipv4
> addresses.

someone wrote to me saying the same thing.  but they added that the
current situation has ripe selling a public good at radically below
market pricing and that this has resulted in some very asocial behavior
with bad long term effects.

>> but we can postpone the inevitable so folk have time to get in
>> the lifeboats.
> There is no amount of time that will be enough.

yes.  but v6 is slowly catching on, and we do what we can to make the
internet a better place.  there is no perfect.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> The rationale for this is to make RIR-allocated ipv4 address space
> string out a bit longer by raising the price and dropping the size.

did it say anything about price?  i missed that?  i did not think the AP
WG dealt with pricing; so it would be pretty strange.

> It is not convincing to state that allocating /22s instead of /24s is an
> abrogation of responsibility, and as a community we should step back
> from this sort of overly dramatic language.

in an american dictionary, 'abrogation' ranges from lack of awareness to
more intentional acts.  in this proposal, it was used in relation to
the occasional proposal to encourage ipv4 runout to promote ipv6, which
should be able to sell on it's own merits, not schadenfreude

> A more sober viewpoint is that any future decision about tweaking the
> balance between allocation size and anticipated run-out time is not
> much more than an exercise in deck-chair rearrangement.  It's a
> deck-chair rearrangement because the ship is going down and nothing
> can stop it.

agreed.  but we can postpone the inevitable so folk have time to get in
the lifeboats.  and if we can, as stewards, we have a responsibility to
do so.

> The proposal fails to mention the windfall that will ensue for existing
> address holders as the baseline RIR price for IPv4 addresses will
> increase from around €4.70 to nearly €19.

truth is, i have not modeled what might happen to the ipv4 market.

> there are quite a few people in this WG who would be happy with this
> sort of change, both brokers and incumbent address holders.

and they are evil so should not allowed to be happy?  :)

> Because of this, we also need to consider as a community what part
> self-interested financial motivation is going to play in terms of
> whether people are going to support this proposal or not, and how
> compatible this is with good governance of the policy-making mechanism
> for global resource allocation.

i am not sure that the community remains sober enough to do so without
getting nasty.  i would how so, but my faith wavers.

> If, as this proposal suggests, we move from a minimum routable range
> of /24 to /25 or longer, this is a change that comes at a cost in
> terms of reducing the lifetime of any routing device on the internet
> which takes a full dfz.

indeed.  but i see it as inevitable as the need to bridge becomes more
and more intense.  so do we want to do it in a controlled and managed
fashion or chaotically?

randy

[address-policy-wg] recantation

[Randy Bush]

at yesterday's address policy statement, i was quite incorrect when i
said that updated or obsoleted rfcs were marked.  they are not.

the index entry is marked.  the rfcB obsoliting rfcA is marked as such.
but rfcA is not marked as modified.

apologies.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Re: 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

[Randy Bush]

> Let me provide some insight on how Inter-RIR legacy transfer go from,
> for instance ARIN to RIPE.

i think there was a presentation on the actualy reality of this at some
yuroopian ops meeting.  see

https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-01 New Policy Proposal (Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy updates)

[Randy Bush]

> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR
> Legacy updates" is now available for discussion.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all
> changes to the holdership of legacy resources in the existing transfer
> statistics.

that is not a goal, but rather the means.  but a means to what end?
i.e. what is the goal of this proposal; what problem does it intend
to solve, or what wonderful opportunity does it hope to exploit?

the written proposal says

In addition to introducing greater transparency, this policy change
would also protect legacy holders from potential hijacks.

why is this true only for legacy space?

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Password

[Randy Bush]

> Need password 

ofBogDog8\9buw4bXLoGvn.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Randy Bush]

> If I would moderate the list I would remove people

let's not

> I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader
> says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins
> just sit in the room and applause.

i assure you that this is not just from communist times.  are you seeing
what is going on in britain, the states, ...?

could you please set an example and pick one small issue in this
document and discuss its pros and cons?

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> PUBLIC IP addresses have given to us to use not to trade. We haven't
> paid for getting them, and we are not the owner.

today, they are not given to us; we pay to rent them.  yes, we are
renting integers.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Randy Bush]

> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is
> strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.

i understand your position.  but my problems are up a couple of layers.

we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot
of new members.  while having new blood is a good balance to us old
fossils, the culture relied too much on unspoken common perceptions,
practices, and goals.  we are not good at articulating them and making
them accessible to the new blood.  so we write more and more complex
policy documents, have lots of votes, ... [0].

and the world is changing, becoming more commercial, less academic and
public service oriented.  and some of us do not do as well with change
as we might; a well-known trait of the, sad to say, majority gender.
we need to get over it.

i do not think we can, or maybe not even should want to, roll things
back to the rosier (or so we fondly think) past.  but we can try to
move forward with some courtesy and civility and an effort to see
everyone's viewpoint, especially of those with whom we think we
disagree.

and we can try to explain our positions and expectations a bit more
clearly in order to compensate for the lack of documentation (that is
not a plea for more policy documents or paperwork).

randy

--

0 - this ongoing wg chair voting thing is such a great example.  we had
a small problem and the cure is a monster.  hence my 'pigasus' (you
have to google it; i was there) comment.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

[Randy Bush]

> I used to assume there is "ALLOCATED PA", "ASSIGNED PA" and "ASSIGNED PI",
> and those are well-defined.  Add "Legacy" to it (outside RIR framework).

inetnum:198.180.150.0 - 198.180.153.255
netname:RG79-198-180-150
country:US
org:ORG-RG79-RIPE
sponsoring-org: ORG-SSP3-RIPE
admin-c:RB366-ARIN
tech-c: RB366-ARIN
status: LEGACY
mnt-by: MAINT-RGNET
mnt-domains:MAINT-RGNET
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT
created:2016-03-16T15:13:51Z
last-modified:  2016-04-14T10:44:25Z
source: RIPE

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

[Randy Bush]

> Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI"
> and "not really real PI".

is there a list of all the colors and what they mean?

> This proposal aims to unify all PI into one colour, which I think is
> good for the resource holders (no uncertainity) - but there is
> potential fallout, like "we've been doing IPv4 PI assignments all the
> years, and nobody bothered!" - which technically could be done from
> "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" blocks, but was always outside RIPE policies -
> and if these are now properly labeled and tagged, certain business
> practices might no longer be possible.

are certain business practices to be compared to uncertain business
practices? :)

i have this feeling you are trying to say something here.  i.e. if i am
the LIR, can i move "not really real PI" between customers and no one
knows?

> Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was
> originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller fragments
> in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - so the /14
> won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics.

lemme see if i get this.  to have the owner registration correct, some
address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple IRs, thus
fragmenting routing?  i like correct registration, but the commons has
become pretty polluted.

> So, to answer your question: for those "swampy PI", it would alter
> their rights (contracts according to 2007-01), costs (50 EUR/year)

whoops.  that's gonna cause unhappiness.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

[Randy Bush]

> My LIR have got ALLOCATED PI and ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks about 
> 20 years ago, according to those days policy. Some part of address space 
> was not aggregated and was used as "ASSIGNED PI within ALLOCATED PI", 
> all of them have agreement with the LIR, which also was within the 
> policy, at least not against. Why should we change anything here? Just 
> because some LIRs lost their control over 50% of the address space 
> allocated to them? Perhaps there are some other ways to restore it?
> 
>>> After the LIRs have finished their research, the RIPE NCC will:
>>>
>>> - Convert assignments to ASSIGNED PA if it can be documented that
>>>   the administrative responsibility lies with the LIR
>>> - Follow up directly with resource holders of ASSIGNED PI to apply
>>>   the RIPE policy, “Contractual Requirements for Provider
>>>   Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”. The
>>>   PI assignments will become part of the address space managed by
>>>   the RIPE NCC just like all other PI space. Once the resource
>>>   holders have fulfilled the contractual requirements, they will
>>>   have the same rights and obligations as any other End User of PI
>>>   space.
>>> - Split the allocations to separate the PI assignments and convert
>>>   the blocks that remain with an LIR to ALLOCATED PA.

i am perennially confused by the different colors of integers.  as you
know, i prefer magenta and comic sans.

ingrid/ncc can you explain in terms an antique router geek can
understand what the actual pragmatic effect would be on these PI/PA
holders?  does it alter holders' rights?  costs?  processes? ...

i suspect that you, larisa, already understand that.  in this case, why,
in pragmatic terms a router geek can understand (yes, i know that's a
high bar, sorry), do you not like it?

randy

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] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Randy Bush]

it's not just our grandchildren.  if the last /8 policy had not been put
in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
IPv4 space.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool
> into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP
> pool received from IANA.

that's nice.  as i said a bit ago, you may want to read the last /8
policy and not start trying to redifine terms.

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

[Randy Bush]

you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative.

> Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy. 
> - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space
>   outside 185/8

this is misleading or just sadly misinformed

last /8 is not an address range, it is a state reached once the ncc had
only that address range and continues on irrespective of additions or
subtractions of space to the ncc's pool.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the
> solution is not working yet" situation.

what solution is not working for you?

randy, running v6 commercially since '97

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

[Randy Bush]

believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet
another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures.  sure, give
them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it.  but will they convert
their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6?  that
decision is driven by very different business cases.

the purpose of the last /8 policy was to let new entrants have teenie
bits of ipv4 to join the internet, which will require v4 for a long
while.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

>> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8,
>> policy unless you have a time machine.  but it might mean we won't have
>> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which
>> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail.
> Exactly, the sad part is, this is essentially the last and only thing you
> can propose a policy regarding v4.

not exactly.  one can propose something in the opposite direction;
allocations from the last /8 be reduced to /24.  it may make ipv4
last longer for the new entrants.  and a /24 should be sufficient
for a large nat.

i.e. i was serious the other day.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4
> policy from today on".

that was my proposal.  the sitting apnic address policy chair went into
bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.

we could try it here.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

i seek co-authors for a policy to make the last /8 allocation a /24

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

i do not support pigs at the last /8 trough

the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.

randy

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
> Encouraging and stimulating it OTOH, could have been skipped/avoided.

the true believers tried to pretend they could hold back the water for
many years.  some are still in denial.

there is an ipv4 address space market.  the rirs are effectively out of
the free source of integers they rent to us.  and world peace could use
some work too.

this ain't our ancestors' internet.  we need to get over it.  dealing
with current reality is hard enough without fantasy and wishful thinking
in the way.

randy

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 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

[Randy Bush]

>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?

first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should
get a /16

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as
> far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to
> this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves
> without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address
> space.

remco, you are cheating.  you actually understand the last /8 policy.

this is just the semi-annual squealing from piggies at the trough

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

> It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need
> more than the default /22.

what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
out, ...?"

remco said it well.  the last /8 policy is designed so children born
after this apocalypse have a few drops of milk to carry them through
to where they can try to subsist on hard food.

randy

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

[Randy Bush]

>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> out, ...?"
> Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.

please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including
smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Numbers Assignments take #4

[Randy Bush]

 I've noted as an argument opposing this proposal: An adversary could
 try to deplete the pool of available ASNs. If someone has a workable
 suggestion how to resolve that in policy, I am all ears, but I wouldn't
 mind a pragmatic approach where we just trust our community and deal
 with issues if and when they arise.

after all, that has worked out so well for ipv4 space

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy

[Randy Bush]

 If at some point in the future, the NCC or community discovers some
 child has abused the system and taken an absurd number of ASNs, the
 NCC has the power to revoke the ASNs under sections 6.3, 9.3, and 9.4
 of the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement.

there lurk lawyers.  i don't think you want to go there.  avoide as much
as humanly possible.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

[Randy Bush]

 What do you mean cheap talk? 
 One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you?

no.  there is a simple a process (eurocratic though it may be).  submit
a proposal.  it is not that hard.  as you said, marco is kind enough to
help.

fwiw, i, and i assume many others, would love to see a proposal for
tightening the leakage.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers

[Randy Bush]

 ... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is
 either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to
 every site on the Internet) with open eyes ...

or deploying nat.  wanna guess which has more takers?

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

[Randy Bush]

   A user in this case is a human using his/her/its
   mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi
   network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a
   local Freifunk node).
 
   It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the
   Freifunk network to connect own network

so i can not use my mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt as a tether?

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

[Randy Bush]

 What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections
 against the proposal have been properly considered.

how do you properly consider filibustering?  the process is being DoSed.
it is really sad to see.  it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but
through the DoS and ad homina, things seem pretty clear.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

[Randy Bush]

 Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree

i do not believe this is correct.  you may find help in understanding
the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

[Randy Bush]

 Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are
 skipping IPv4 completely?

i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the you
should be using ipv6 religion.

 I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of
 their developing stage.

yep.  but there is a small problem.  we are out of ipv4 space.  there
ain't no more.

 If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last
 /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider
 their conditions too.

it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...)  read the
discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many
of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old
discussions.  it boiled down to
  o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it
  o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone
in a small number of weeks and we would be back to ipv4 is gone
  o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it
  o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new
entrants at least run a NAT
  o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it
  o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps.  that's life
  o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it

it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the
greedy phase.  ah well.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

[Randy Bush]

you may also find
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WGChairTraining/rtgwg_train_2.pdf
useful

 I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass.

from what i understand, discussion of this proposal has already closed.

i was traveling, so came on a week of (so called) 'discussion' all at
once.  i did not learn much; it was mostly repetitive, much more noise
and ad homina than actual facts or fact based arguments (in the
constructive sense of 'argument').

there is an american idiom it's all over but the shouting,
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It's+all+over+but+the+shouting
which sadly seems apt.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

[Randy Bush]

 One correction to my last post no provider today will be able provide
 end customer IPv6 access only network

i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

[Randy Bush]

 RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE
 NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is
 individual having an interest not corporations being part of a
 commercial structure.

the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community,
whether LIR, enterprise, or 15 year old with a modem (he has probably
upgraded since i last used him as an example).  the internet is for
everyone, and policy decisions should be open to input from everyone.

of course, this does not include sock puppets.

randy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

[Randy Bush]

 Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking,
 everyone's opinion is listened to.
 
 Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of
 show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments,
 I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these
 are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do
 not like the proposal, or just straw men.  I can't tell, so I won't
 dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result,
 this certainly will influence the way we look at them.

well said.  this is why we have humans for deciding these things and why
i continue to support you and sander as co-chairs.

thank you.

randy