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

[Sylvain Vallerot]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


Dear Aled,
dear all,

On 13/06/2016 17:29, Aled Morris wrote:
> 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.)

LIRs being (quite likely) End Users, this is fine.

But we definitely cannot assume that all End Users are LIRs,
nor make a policy take it for granted.

Put in another words we cannot have a policy say that an End User
needs to be a LIR to have a chance to get access to the ressource.

Allowing future End Users to have a tiny bit of IPv4 to bootstrap
means allowing *End Users*, not just those that are LIRs. Right ?

I would appreciate a confirmation from the "sitting-ones" that my 
understanding of the spirit of the last /8 policy is correct on
this point because I sometimes doubt it when reading things like 
proposal 2013-03.

Best regards,
Sylvain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlde1AMACgkQJBGsD8mtnRHH4gD/duowiNMLW8a1E1SRuYj3UgBK
QczJw7sdCw4bGICrmvEA/AjXyqIkX0xBBxk91zTgbIbVvqsVlEaPBZ/F9bygbaki
=ZT3L
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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)

[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] 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)

[Dominik Nowacki]

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.

With Kind Regards,
Dominik Nowacki

Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. 
Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, 
London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may 
monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of 
security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and 
is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the 
intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. 
Please notify ab...@clouvider.net of this e-mail 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor 
any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or 
omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail 
transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

On 10 Jun 2016, at 14:17, Aled Morris 
> wrote:

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

[Alexey Galaev]

Hello. 
There are a lot of negative opinions about this proposal. 
I hope that this proposal will be withdrawn. 

BR, 
Alexey Galaev 
+7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru 

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

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Vallerot <
sylvain.valle...@opdop.net> wrote:
>
> These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your
> proposition is applying to LIRs.
>
> So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension
> void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User.
>

Several (and I would say many) LIRs _are_ end users, and the distinction
between LIR and end users is not, as far as I have understood past and
current policy, not intended to be watertight.

In other words, it's fine for a LIR to be an end user, and in principle, it
seems sensible that policy acknowledges that, but avoids making unnecessary
limitations that interfere with that.



>
> So I oppose this proposal.
>
> As I already explained some time ago, a fair "last /8" policy
> evolution should tend to apply abuse control on End Users and let
> LIRs make an independant job correctly : there is no point in
> having LIRs limited in distributing IP ressources to new born ops,
> and the new born ops shall not be forced to become LIRs to exists.
>

This has already happened. There has been a huge amount of new LIRs
registered in order to acquire a share of the remaining pool.

Your arguments do not seem to be arguments against 2016-03, but against
current policy.

If you want to change current policy, you should do as the authors of
2015-05 and 2016-03: gather support, make a proposal yourself.


Please note that I'm not flagging any preference for or against the policy
proposal. I think it's a bit too much like deck chair rearrangement, and my
feelings for it are more "meh" than anything else, at least for now. :)
-- 
Jan

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

[DI. Thomas Schallar]

Hello Arash!


Arash Naderpour schrieb am 09.06.2016 um 11:53:

Would be any new allocation for them in 1-3 years?


No, of course not.



Re-allocate their IP space to what?


Either to remaining IP fragments in older blocks or to CGN and/or IPv6. 
The very same what any provider has to do with its customers.



As I asked before: how many ISPs do have more than one "final" /22 in 
Use? If this would be a small number, we can skip any discussion about 
them and what to do.


regards,
Thomas

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:43:09AM +0200, Denis Fondras wrote:
> Is there an official statement on this point ? Can LIR from the last-/8
> distribute addresses to customers or only use it on CGN ?

Policy is clear on that: you can use the addresses any way you want.

*BUT*: do not come back later and ask for more if you used them carelessly
- thus, it may be generally a good idea to use the last scraps of IPv4 to
enable communication between your IPv6 customer base and those folks out
there that still have no IPv6.

So it's sort of implied that the intended usage is "for IPv6<->IPv4
gatewaying" (or to dual-stack your mail and DNS servers, etc. etc.),
but policy doesn't formally say so.

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

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Arash Naderpour]

Hi,

Re-allocate their IP space to what? Would be any new allocation for them in 1-3 
years?

Regards,

Arash

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of DI. Thomas Schallar
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 4:54 PM
To: Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulga...@gmail.com>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the 
Final /8 Policy)

Hi!

Aleksey Bulgakov schrieb am 07.06.2016 um 15:22:
> What will happen with already received additional  /22 from the 185./8?

My suggestion is, that the proposal should also apply for those LIRs.

But of course you have to give them time to re-allocate their IP space, before 
they have to give the additional /22's back. I would think about
1-3 years.

How many multiple last-/22 allocations do we talk about? 10? 1000?

regards,
Thomas

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

[Denis Fondras]

> These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your
> proposition is applying to LIRs.
> 
> So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension 
> void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User.
> 
> So I oppose this proposal.
> 

I fully agree with you but it seems some think that prefixes from last-/8 is not
intended to be used and distributed as we used to. Which I can comprehend,
because as LIR we need to understand and make our end-users understand there is
no IPv4 available anymore.

Is there an official statement on this point ? Can LIR from the last-/8
distribute addresses to customers or only use it on CGN ?

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

[DI. Thomas Schallar]

Hi!

Aleksey Bulgakov schrieb am 07.06.2016 um 15:22:

What will happen with already received additional  /22 from the 185./8?


My suggestion is, that the proposal should also apply for those LIRs.

But of course you have to give them time to re-allocate their IP space, 
before they have to give the additional /22's back. I would think about 
1-3 years.


How many multiple last-/22 allocations do we talk about? 10? 1000?

regards,
Thomas

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Aleksey,

Il 06/06/2016 23:54, Aleksey Bulgakov ha scritto:


Hi.

Why are we talking about 185./8 only? There are many unused 
allocations bigger than /8 but the NCC doesn't want to pay attention 
to them.




As you can read on the top of 2016-03 proposal states:

 * Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
   all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
   been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA

This would apply to the whole reamining pool.


E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I 
didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 
years (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part 
of it.


There is 2015-01, that prevents speculations. And I don't see any 
reasons to implement 2016-03.


"Sergey" > wrote:
>
> Completely agree with Riccardo on this.
>
> I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit 
is not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google 
has supported this concern.

>
> If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not 
workarounds against the policy added.

>
>
> On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion 
there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for 
reasoucers not in use.
>> I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced 
and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and 
business processes.

>>
>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that 
make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired 
space before 09/2012.

>> I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
>>
>> If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole 
IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled 
and not in use.

>> Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
>>
>> To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and 
check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy.

>> This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
>>
>> I cannot support this policy
>>
>> regards
>> Riccardo
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ing. Riccardo Gori
>> e-mail:rg...@wirem.net 
>>
>> WIREM Fiber Revolution
>> Net-IT s.r.l.
>> Via Cesare Montanari, 2
>> 47521 Cesena (FC)
>> Tel +39 0547 1955485
>> Fax +39 0547 1950285
>>
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
>> above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
>> the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
>> is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
>> the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
>> plying toi...@wirem.net 
>> Thank you
>> WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
>> 
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> CTO at
> Foton Telecom CJSC
> Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
> nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE
> AS42861 on PeeringDB, Qrator,BGP.HE.NET 
>
> "Amazing photons
> Carry our data worldwide
> Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS


regards
Riccardo
--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:30:44AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> I was disagree with Elvis about 2015-01, but I agree now.
> 
> Dear, chairs. Could you, please, tell if this proposal is opened for
> discuss or withdrawn. :)

As per

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals

it is in discussion phase until 21 Jun 2016.  Easy to find with google.

Since you did not see an announcement either by Remco or Marco that it has
been withdrawn, it has not - the proposer is free to take the feedback from
the discussion phase and work that into a "v2" of the proposal, for example,
instead of withdrawing.

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

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:54:04AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I
> didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years
> (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.

That would certainly be welcome, but there are no contractual or policy
requirements that could *force* the LIR to return the space (or would allow
the RIPE NCC to take it back).

Allocation policy has always been geared to "here's a block, you fill it,
then you come back and ask for the next block" - the situation "here's a 
block, and if you do *not* fill it, give back the unused part in  years 
time" just did not happen during the growth years of the IPv4 Internet,
so the policy does not have any clauses for it.

Changing the policy to apply to old blocks would be retroactively applying
policy to *holders*, which is generally a no-go area  (and I disagree with
some members of the community here on what is "retroactive" - I think that
affecting future(!) *actions* regarding a block is ok, but changing the
de-facto *status* of something people rely on is highly problematic)

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

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 6 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Elvis Daniel Velea  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
>>> 
>> We are not. You might be though. :-)
> Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression that 
> it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting.

I was only explaining what resources are covered by the current policy (ie last 
/8). Nothing to do with 2016-03. That proposal’s deader than Elvis. Not you 
obviously, the other one who played Vegas a lot in the 70s. :-)

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

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

So, if this policy is approved, all allocations will have 'final-allocated'
status and return to the NCC if there are more than 2 allocations with
'final-allocated' status. Or I don't understand this policy and it should
be changed
7 июня 2016 г. 1:17 пользователь "Jim Reid"  написал:

>
> > On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
>
> We are not. You might be though. :-)
>
> Current policy applies to ALL IPv4 address space held by the NCC. Or that
> may be obtained by the NCC somehow, say because it was returned by an LIR
> or a future allocation from IANA of freshly reclaimed space.
>
> This policy has been commonly called “last /8” as a sort of shorthand by
> the community. Sadly, this name is misleading. Some have assumed the policy
> only applies to allocations made by the NCC out of its last /8: 185/8. It
> doesn’t. It applies to all allocations from now on regardless of which
> chunk of a /8 held by the NCC gets chosen to issue a one-time-only /22 to
> an LIR.
>
> The policy became known as “last /8” because it came into effect as soon
> as the NCC had to make an allocation from its final /8 allocation from
> IANA. ie An LIR's request was too big to be satisfied from a block
> elsewhere in the NCC’s pool of available space and therefore had to come
> from an allocation out of 185/8. At that point, the previous policy of
> needs-based allocation ended and LIRs could only get a single /22.
>
>

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote:

On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov  wrote:

Why are we talking about 185./8 only?

We are not. You might be though. :-)
Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression 
that it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting.


If that is the case, let's withdraw it and stop the noise :) If not, 
Remco, please let us know what you want to do with it as it is obvious 
that this version will never be accepted.


thanks,
elvis

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov  wrote:
> 
> Why are we talking about 185./8 only?

We are not. You might be though. :-)

Current policy applies to ALL IPv4 address space held by the NCC. Or that may 
be obtained by the NCC somehow, say because it was returned by an LIR or a 
future allocation from IANA of freshly reclaimed space.

This policy has been commonly called “last /8” as a sort of shorthand by the 
community. Sadly, this name is misleading. Some have assumed the policy only 
applies to allocations made by the NCC out of its last /8: 185/8. It doesn’t. 
It applies to all allocations from now on regardless of which chunk of a /8 
held by the NCC gets chosen to issue a one-time-only /22 to an LIR.

The policy became known as “last /8” because it came into effect as soon as the 
NCC had to make an allocation from its final /8 allocation from IANA. ie An 
LIR's request was too big to be satisfied from a block elsewhere in the NCC’s 
pool of available space and therefore had to come from an allocation out of 
185/8. At that point, the previous policy of needs-based allocation ended and 
LIRs could only get a single /22.

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

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

Hi.

Why are we talking about 185./8 only? There are many unused allocations
bigger than /8 but the NCC doesn't want to pay attention to them.

E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I
didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years
(or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.

There is 2015-01, that prevents speculations. And I don't see any reasons
to implement 2016-03.

"Sergey"  wrote:
>
> Completely agree with Riccardo on this.
>
> I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit is
not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has
supported this concern.
>
> If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not
workarounds against the policy added.
>
>
> On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a
big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in
use.
>> I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and
in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business
processes.
>>
>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make
possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before
09/2012.
>> I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
>>
>> If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4
RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in
use.
>> Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
>>
>> To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check
if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy.
>> This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
>>
>> I cannot support this policy
>>
>> regards
>> Riccardo
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ing. Riccardo Gori
>> e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
>>
>> WIREM Fiber Revolution
>> Net-IT s.r.l.
>> Via Cesare Montanari, 2
>> 47521 Cesena (FC)
>> Tel +39 0547 1955485
>> Fax +39 0547 1950285
>>
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
>> above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
>> the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
>> is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
>> the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
>> plying to i...@wirem.net
>> Thank you
>> WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
>> 
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> CTO at
> Foton Telecom CJSC
> Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
> nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE
> AS42861 on PeeringDB, Qrator, BGP.HE.NET
>
> "Amazing photons
> Carry our data worldwide
> Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS

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

[Sergey]

Completely agree with Riccardo on this.

I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit is 
not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has 
supported this concern.


If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not 
workarounds against the policy added.


On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:


Hi,

although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's 
a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers 
not in use.
I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and 
in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and 
business processes.


A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make 
possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space 
before 09/2012.

I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.

If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole 
IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled 
and not in use.

Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.

To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and 
check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy.

This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.

I cannot support this policy

regards
Riccardo

--
Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail:rg...@wirem.net

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying toi...@wirem.net
 Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)



--
Kind regards,
CTO at
*Foton Telecom CJSC*
Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99
nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE
AS42861 on PeeringDB , Qrator 
, BGP.HE.NET 


/"Amazing photons
Carry our data worldwide
Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS/

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi,

although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a 
big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in 
use.
I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and 
in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and 
business processes.


A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make 
possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space 
before 09/2012.

I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.

If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 
RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not 
in use.

Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.

To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check 
if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy.

This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.

I cannot support this policy

regards
Riccardo

--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail:rg...@wirem.net

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying toi...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Andy Davidson]

Hi,

I’m late to the party but I note that according to the RIPE NCC website, the 
good Mr. van Mook has not yet been kind enough to revoke the policy proposal 
yet, so allow me to say...



On 17/05/2016, 14:01, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard" 
 wrote:

>Specifically, it will not deal with the problem that the RIPE NCC was
>set up to do, namely to ensure accurate registration of resources.

.. that I agree with Nick's sentence, and object to the proposal.  Whilst I 
understand the motive (and it’s a bloody good troll), I specifically object to 
a proposal which might ask or require an LIR to return in-use resources, which 
were previously correctly and in good faith, assigned in accordance with policy 
and procedures.

Andy

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Il 17/05/2016 20:12, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.

What really amaze me. We are using tons of time here in ag-wg talking
over IPv4 while there is not half that activity over in IPv6-wg.


I take that as a statement that everyone know everything there is to
know about IPv6, there are nothing more to discuss or learn, no
questions to ask, we are all using it so very few people are left
behind in IPv4 land... soon to be isolated island not able to talk
with anyone.

... is that how it is?



Why aren't all of you with HUGE and MAJOR problem (sorry for the caps)
with lack of IPv4 address over in IPv6-wg bombing us with question on
how to get out of your current trouble?
Asking all kind of stupid and newbie questions? I'm very sure there
are tons of people standing in line to help you out.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6

Thank you for focusing all of us on it.






PS 1 : chairs - I object to this policy and the other one trying to
sort a problem that can't be sorted in IPv4 land, only IPv6 can.


PS 2 : Nick Hillard summarized it very well here:

Like the curate's egg, this proposal is good in parts. Here's the good part:


- Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA





--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

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

[Tore Anderson]

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

> As you may know, the "multiple LIRs" is for the moment least expensive
> way of getting around the "one /22" restriction. Combined withe the
> removal of "need checking", this very much looks like selling /22 to
> anybody willing to pay a sign-up and at least one year of membership.

I've attempted to explain to you before[1] why this line of reasoning
makes no sense, but I'll try again in case you missed it the first
time around.

The RIPE NCC has always been automatically handing out minimum-sized
initial IPv4 allocations to new members. This you can see already in
ripe-136, which dates all the way back from 1996:

«The first allocation will be made automatically by the RIPE NCC,
generally upon receipt of the first assignment request from the local
IR. Because there is no information about the rate at which a new IR
will make address assignments, the size of the first allocation is
always a /19 (8092 addresses).»

"Need checking" was only used whenever the new LIR requested an initial
allocation *larger* than the minimum allocation size, something the
policy was later updated to allow for. (Figuring out exactly when that
happened is an exercise left for the reader.)

When the «last /8» policy was implemented, the possibility to request
larger-than-minimal initial allocations was removed, so the procedure
for receiving an initial allocation essentially reverted back to what
it was in 1996: the initial allocation is a fixed size prefix that is
given automatically to any new LIR requesting it.

In short: today's practise of automatically giving minimum-sized
allocation to new LIRs is something the RIPE NCC has been doing since
its inception, and it's all in accordance with the RIPE community's
policies. If you're going to continue to accuse the NCC of «selling
IPv4», then you'll have to claim that that's something they've *always*
done, and furthermore that they're currently «selling IPv6» in exactly
the same way.

Or, even better, you can stop making this nonsensical accusation.

Tore

[1] 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-May/011215.html

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> Investment fund would probably be more appropriate. So is it possible to
> have a non-profit investment fund ? For me "non-profit" means not
> actively seeking profit; target being a zero end-of year result.

And this is what the NCC is doing - target being a zero result.

There is money on the bank accounts, with the goal of being enough to
sustain the NCC for somewhat over a year in case something catastrophic
happens.  If that money were to grow significantly, the NCC would have
to pay taxes, which we all do not want - which is why the surplus was
refunded last year.

(All of this is more a matter for the membership meeting, though, where
detailed financial numbers are presented)

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

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 13:02, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what
> > constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not
> > automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise.
>
> Investment fund would probably be more appropriate. So is it possible to
> have a non-profit investment fund ? For me "non-profit" means not
> actively seeking profit; target being a zero end-of year result.
>

I see no evidence that the RIPE NCC is "actively seeking profit" in any
reasonable sense of that phrase.

Could you please take that rhetoric out by the barn, shoot it, and bury it
in a deep grave, so we don't have to see it anymore?

-- 
Jan

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 13:02, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what
> constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not
> automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise.

Investment fund would probably be more appropriate. So is it possible to
have a non-profit investment fund ? For me "non-profit" means not
actively seeking profit; target being a zero end-of year result.

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

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> Remco,
>
> As you may know, the "multiple LIRs" is for the moment least expensive
> way of getting around the "one /22" restriction. Combined withe the
> removal of "need checking", this very much looks like selling /22 to
> anybody willing to pay a sign-up and at least one year of membership.
>
> This may not have been intentional, but it looks to me as a first step
> to "turning commercial".
>
> With your proposal, while the idea was to discourage the "multiple LIR"
> practice, I have very serious doubts that it will happen this way. Given
> the current market price (which is only the most important show-stopper,
> but not the only one), with your proposal it would take about 5 years of
> membership to get at a similar level. With all that money going to the
> NCC. IF the NCC really whishes to keep its not-for-profit status, this
> will result in reduced membership, one reduced membership for older
> LIRs, but several memberships for the LIRs in "desperate need" (mostly
> small new ones).
>
>
I don't find your response clarifying in the least.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what
constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not
automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise.
-- 
Jan

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

Remco,

As you may know, the "multiple LIRs" is for the moment least expensive
way of getting around the "one /22" restriction. Combined withe the
removal of "need checking", this very much looks like selling /22 to
anybody willing to pay a sign-up and at least one year of membership.

This may not have been intentional, but it looks to me as a first step
to "turning commercial".

With your proposal, while the idea was to discourage the "multiple LIR"
practice, I have very serious doubts that it will happen this way. Given
the current market price (which is only the most important show-stopper,
but not the only one), with your proposal it would take about 5 years of
membership to get at a similar level. With all that money going to the
NCC. IF the NCC really whishes to keep its not-for-profit status, this
will result in reduced membership, one reduced membership for older
LIRs, but several memberships for the LIRs in "desperate need" (mostly
small new ones).

And of course, it would look more like a business of "leasing
IPv4 blocks".

... and you DO have a NCC hat.

I hope it does clarify my previous e-mail.

On Wed, May 18, 2016, at 00:24, Remco van Mook wrote:
>
> Radu-Adrian, can you please clarify and substantiate this part of your
> response?
>
> > This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to
> > transforming RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if
> > it will not be RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old
> > LIRs" getting all the benefits (one single membership fee instead of
> > several). I can see a hat there

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

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

[Denis Fondras]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 09:55:31AM +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> 
> 1.) what sort of restriction are we willing to put on address space? How
> and where, and in what direction can we think of restriction? On where
> it be used? On how it can be used, and what type of restriction?
> You have to publish IPv6 for any services/things using this address
> space?
> 

As long as there is space available on the IPv4 market, there is no need to
change the "no more than one /22 per LIR" rule. Keep the remaining RIR pool for
new entrants.
Once the market is dry, we can relax the rule.

Speaking of IPv6, I can't see what more we can do. We provide address without
justification, we provide tools, documentation and training for free. Many of
us, as a community, are ready to help people not confident to kickstart.
When you ask why IPv6 is not deployed :
- no need : then you'll pay your need for IPv4 at the market price
- not enough information or support : if you need help, the community can help.
- no support from transit provider or equipement vendor : unfortunately, it
  will be hard for RIPE to bring willing IPv6 provider in your area or pay for
  your gear if you can't afford the right provider.

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
> to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
> These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several
> restrictions:
>
> -These allocation are not transferrable
> -LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
> -Sub-allocations are not possible
> -Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03


Hi all,

Based on the extended discussion on the other proposal on the table
and that we are supposed to work together toward consensus I got
a few questions to the community regarding this proposal.


Since this proposal opened the door on introducing restriction on
an IPv4 block I'll follow that up...

1.) what sort of restriction are we willing to put on address space? How
and where, and in what direction can we think of restriction? On where
it be used? On how it can be used, and what type of restriction?
You have to publish IPv6 for any services/things using this address
space?



2.) the second part of the question, please do not mix it up with the
first one, how can restriction be implemented and enforced? Do we
have to introduce "need based requests" again? RPKI? Withdraw?
Just - if we're following the path of restriction, what tools do we have
available?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

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

[Wilfried Woeber]

The only provision in the list of 4 items below which I would support
is the first one: "These allocation[s] are not transferable"

In the case that these addresses are no longer used or needed, they have to be
returned to "Last /8" Pool at the RIPE NCC.

Number 2 - is a non-starter for me, because it is easily circumvented and
difficult to check and to enforce.

Number 3 - has already been commented on, as contradicting the model and mode
of operation of an LIR.

Number 4 - I don't get, neither what the intention is, nor the mechanism to
manage that.

Wilfried

On 2016-05-17 14:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
> to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
> These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several 
> restrictions:
> 
> -These allocation are not transferrable
> -LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
> -Sub-allocations are not possible
> -Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>  before 15 June 2016.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 

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

[Athina Fragkouli]

Dear Sasha, all,

The concern you raise was addressed back in 2009, when the RIPE
community was discussing three different last /8 policy proposals (the
proposals 2008-06, 2009-3 and 2009-04). All three policy proposals
allowed one single /22 allocation per LIR.

Back then the RIPE NCC received legal advice from external legal
advisers with an expertise in EU Competition Law. The advise was based
on the assumption that each new LIR would receive no more than a single
/22. The RIPE NCC had shared this legal advise with the RIPE community
and has presented on it at RIPE 59 in Lisbon:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2009-October/004743.html
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20091006/c9513ab7/attachment.pdf
http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/pawlik-final-shalsh-8.pdf

The outcome of the advise was the following:

"The proposed final /8 policies are likely to comply with the conditions
of article 81(3) EC: they contribute to optimising distribution and/or
to promoting technical progress; in so doing, they benefit consumers;
they do not appear to impose restrictions which are not indispensable to
the attainment of their objective of optimising the usage of the IPv4
unallocated pool; and they do not eliminate competition in respect of
the IPv4 unallocated pool.
[...]
For future reference, [...] any final /8 policy adopted by the RIPE
Community and implemented by RIPE NCC should:
(i) continue to be adopted by means of the bottom-up, consensus driven
open policy development process of the RIPE Community;
(ii) be as open as possible (i.e., involve as many LIRs as possible,
which is the case for the currently proposed policies); and
(iii) be applied in a clear non-discriminatory manner, and third parties
(new LIRs) should have fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access."

I would like to highlight that since 2009 article 81(3) has been
renumbered to 101(3) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European
Union, but the content remains the same:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E101

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Athina Fragkouli
Head of Legal
RIPE NCC


> Subject:  Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking
> Down the Final /8 Policy)
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:44:14 +0100
> From: Sascha Luck [ml] <a...@c4inet.net>
> To:   address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
>>is now available for discussion.
>>
>>The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
>>to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
>>These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with 
>>several restrictions:
>>
>>-These allocation are not transferrable
>>-LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
>>-Sub-allocations are not possible
>>-Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
> 
> I would like to see a statement from NCC Legal on the legality of
> any of these proposals with particular emphasis on EU "barrier to
> entry" legislation.
> 
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Denis Fondras]

I do not support this proposal as long as this is not cleared :

> With regards to sub-allocations, I fail to understand what problem are
> you trying to solve? Isn't delegating resources downstream towards
> end-users (i.e., making assignments or sub-allocations) essentially the
> whole point of operating an LIR? Stopping LIRs from doing "LIR stuff"
> seems ill advised to me - or what am I missing here?
> 

However I support the spirit of this proposal where allocation from RIPE and
usage of IPv4 should be made harder. If IPv4 requires more work than IPv6 then
perhaps we will see an increase in IPv6 usage (or I might be naive)

> The proposal needs guidance to the NCC as to which specific /22 the NCC
> should de-register. The oldest? The least-assigned?
> 

I don't think so. LIR might be free to give back any /22 it suits better.

Denis

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

[Remco van Mook]

Radu-Adrian,

can you please clarify and substantiate this part of your response?

> 
> This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to transforming
> RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if it will not be
> RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old LIRs" getting all the
> benefits (one single membership fee instead of several). I can see a hat
> there

Kind regards,

Remco



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:29:21PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> Didn't you think to review other /8 or what allocations were made before
> 2012?

How's that going to bury IPv4 and "develop the path to go to the Internet
to IPv6"?

Folks, the only way to move towards IPv6 is to *do* it.  Stop waiting
for everyone else to move for you, or move first (I've done that - moved
first, that is - 17 years ago!).  Deploy IPv6, and if someone runs 
a service important to your customers that has no IPv6, have your
customers tell them that this someone needs to get work done.

And if your suppliers do not have IPv6, go and find other suppliers that
do have (instead of finding excuses why you still buy IPv4-only products).

It will be lots of work, and lots of argueing, and sometimes it will be
more expensive.  But the wall is coming, and no matter how hard you argue
IPv4 policy will make it last forever.  You're already 5 years too late.

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

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, May 17, 2016, at 14:46, Remco van Mook wrote:
> > So this includes LIR's who already have (through acquisition of other 
> > companies) multiple /22 from the last /8
> 
> It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged LIRs and
> are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8 you're fine. It
> does stop future cases though.

This is not exactly my reading of the new 5.1.5.
If a LIR already holds several /22 and stays the way it is, OK, it stays
the same.
However, if a LIR, holding several "last /22" *today* acquires another
LIR having a "last /22" and proceeds to a merger, in my reading it is
supposed to loose the equivalent of "last /8 space" it already has.

And I this cannot stop me thinking about the incitation of keeping as
many LIRs as possible alive. You can always buy another company and keep
the LIR, and this will be exactly what will happen if this policy gets
implemented.
This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to transforming
RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if it will not be
RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old LIRs" getting all the
benefits (one single membership fee instead of several). I can see a hat
there

Otherwise:
 - still no incitation to deploy IPv6. Zero. Nada. a.k.a. "IPv4 is good,
 please go to the market; IPv6 really is irrelevant".
 - I don't get the point for the "reverse delegation restriction". BTW,
 how do you define "another party" ?
 - see the arguments for 2015-05 (I suppose this proposal is just the
 counter-reaction to that one), what you say is just dust in new
 entrants' eyes : "you have a /22 to start, but nothing more to live".
 It also misses the point of what is a "new entrant" today : i.e. not
 always someone prepared to do the "registry" job - "registry" like the
 "R" in LIR.

Circumvention : keep up with multiple LIRs, for NCC's profit.

But after all, I can also understand the very high possibility that this
proposal is only a bad joke (even it we're May 15th, not April 1st).

Just in case it's not clear, I'm completely against.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

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

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

Hi.

Didn't you think to review other /8 or what allocations were made before
2012?
17 мая 2016 г. 22:23 пользователь "Gert Doering"  написал:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:28:27PM +0200, ? ? wrote:
> > Respected  community,  we  should  think  about and finally form an idea
> and a road map how to finally bury the IPV4 and
> > motivation to develop the path to go to the Internet to IPV6
> irrevocably. Otherwise we will be until the end of his life
> > to stagnate and share of long-dead body IPV4.
>
> We're all ears.  Please let us know what we should do.
>
> We tried
>
>  - make IPv6 policy as easy as possible
>  - offer IPv6 trainings (for free!)
>  - require IPv6 in various forms in the IPv4 policy
>  - advertise IPv6 at every possible opportunity
>  - even have a working group to help people iron out IPv6 problems
>
> Gert
> --
> 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
>

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:28:27PM +0200, ? ? wrote:
> Respected  community,  we  should  think  about and finally form an idea and 
> a road map how to finally bury the IPV4 and
> motivation to develop the path to go to the Internet to IPV6 irrevocably. 
> Otherwise we will be until the end of his life
> to stagnate and share of long-dead body IPV4.

We're all ears.  Please let us know what we should do.

We tried

 - make IPv6 policy as easy as possible
 - offer IPv6 trainings (for free!)
 - require IPv6 in various forms in the IPv4 policy
 - advertise IPv6 at every possible opportunity
 - even have a working group to help people iron out IPv6 problems

Gert
-- 
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


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[Куприянов Роман]

Dear colleagues,

It's  no secret that the remaining blocks IPV4 - is the object of sale and 
purchase some sort of business. And this is a
problem.

Respected  community,  we  should  think  about and finally form an idea and a 
road map how to finally bury the IPV4 and
motivation to develop the path to go to the Internet to IPV6 irrevocably. 
Otherwise we will be until the end of his life
to stagnate and share of long-dead body IPV4.

--
Best regards,
Kupriyanov Roman   (ru.enigma)


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.

What really amaze me. We are using tons of time here in ag-wg talking
over IPv4 while there is not half that activity over in IPv6-wg.


I take that as a statement that everyone know everything there is to
know about IPv6, there are nothing more to discuss or learn, no
questions to ask, we are all using it so very few people are left
behind in IPv4 land... soon to be isolated island not able to talk
with anyone.

... is that how it is?



Why aren't all of you with HUGE and MAJOR problem (sorry for the caps)
with lack of IPv4 address over in IPv6-wg bombing us with question on
how to get out of your current trouble?
Asking all kind of stupid and newbie questions? I'm very sure there
are tons of people standing in line to help you out.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6





PS 1 : chairs - I object to this policy and the other one trying to
sort a problem that can't be sorted in IPv4 land, only IPv6 can.


PS 2 : Nick Hillard summarized it very well here:

Like the curate's egg, this proposal is good in parts. Here's the good part:

> - Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
> all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
> been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA


-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

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

[Remco van Mook]

Hi Jerome,


> On 17 May 2016, at 16:26 , Jérôme Nicolle  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I firmly oppose this policy proposal for the following reasons :

I will try to address your objections below:

> 
> * Interference with routing
> 
> I always understood RIPE NCC must not consider routing issues as
> legitimate (when justificating address space requests was a thing), the
> counterpart could be implicit.
> 
> De-agregating a /22 is legitimate in many cases, especially when it's
> your only available block. Restricting route objects or RPKI will lead
> to *weaken routing's security* and *reduce the registry's quality*.
> 
> It would also make it impossible to mitigate BGP hijacking if a
> legitimate announce cannot counter a more specific illegitimate one.
> 

It does not interfere with routing. It specifically states 'up to a total of a 
/22 of IPv4 space'. It doesn't say it's supposed to be a single block. How you 
want to carve up that /22 is up to you.


> * Not concise enough
> 
> The proposal actually means "Every /8 PA is now a PI". Such policy
> should be written in its simpliest form, which in this case is an 8
> words sentence.

No, it doesn't mean "every /8 PA is now a PI".  There are some broad 
similarities with the old PI policy. The concept of "PI" no longer exists in 
current IPv4 allocation policy except for transfers; an attempt to revive IPv4 
PI failed.

> 
> * Not adressing the multi-LIR issue
> 
> If such proposal AND the re-authorization of multiple LIR account per
> member both gets to pass, it would almost feel legitimate to create
> multiple LIRs in order to be allowed to secure our networks by
> de-agregating some critical prefixes off it.
> 
> Encouraging the waste of address space seems incompatible with the
> community's best interests.

I don't see how this wastes address space any more than current policy. I also 
don't see how you'd need multiple LIRs to 'de-aggregate some critical 
prefixes'. On top of that, conservation went out the window with the acceptance 
of 2013-03.


> 
> * Unclear non-transferability
> 
> There are two kinds of possible transfers :
> 
> - The legitimate one is Mergure and Acquisition, which reflects real
> network and business events.
> - The crook's one is the listing service, used to get profits off
> privatizing the public domain.
> 
> Only the second one should be banned, or mergure and acquisitions won't
> be properly reflected into the registry.

I explicitly didn't want to express any opinions on what kind of transfers 
ought to be allowed. If regular transfers get banned, going through the M 
process - especially with empty shell companies - is trivial; which is why I'm 
proposing that it doesn't matter how you ended up with those extra blocks; you 
can't have more than 1.

Right now, it doesn't matter how big or how small your organisation is, or how 
many address space you need, you get a /22. Once. However, the exception crept 
in that if you acquire or merge with other companies, this limitation does not 
currently apply. However practical, this exception needs to be contained if you 
want to effectively limit the marketability of these blocks.

> 
> * Unfairness to new entrants
> 
> The issue regarding new entrants with legitimate needs for more than a
> /22 beeing unable to compete against incubents, who never had to justify
> their dispendious tendancies regarding ERXs and over /16 PAs, could be
> considered as unlawfull to some market authorities.
> 

Legitimate need or not, setting up new LIRs or shell companies to become LIRs 
in order to gain extra address space to me is pretty obvious exploitation of a 
loophole in policy. It's like tax avoidance - it's not illegal but did you 
really open up a business in Panama for legitimate reasons?
If you think this is unfair, every bit of needs based allocation policy (RFC 
2050 and onwards) in the last 20 years has been unfair, and the fact that it's 
now down to just /22s is more or less irrelevant. No market authorities I'm 
aware of have objected to allocation policy during the past 2 decades.

It's actually the other way around. Right now, we're all aware of creative 
interpretation of the current IPv4 allocation policy. If we don't try to 
address this behaviour, it would be very easy to assume that the community is 
approving of it. And that is a stick that new entrants a couple of years from 
now will use against us.

Kind regards,

Remco



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 17 May 2016, at 13:08, Remco van Mook  wrote:
> 
> The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of the 
> last /8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and lock it 
> down against creative interpretations.
> 
> ...
> 
> Let's hear your thoughts.

I broadly agree with Nick’s position.

The clarifying part of 2016-03 should be put into a separate proposal. ie The 
current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held 
by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA.

This tweak is just good housekeeping and should be non-controversial. I hope 
that a new proposal along those lines would get consensus and be quickly 
adopted since it’s clarifying some unintended confusion in the current policy 
text.

While I am sort of in agreement with some of the other aspects of 2016-03, 
these should go into into another proposal because those ideas may well run 
into troubled waters. It would be a pity if the above clarification got held up 
because of the likely squabbling over 2016-03’s suggestions on transfers and 
return of space. It would be better if those two different strands didn’t have 
to share the same fate. They’re orthogonal to each other too.

Consider this a “meh” on 2016-03. I don’t support the proposal but I don’t 
object to it either.

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

[Jérôme Nicolle]

Hello,

I firmly oppose this policy proposal for the following reasons :

* Interference with routing

I always understood RIPE NCC must not consider routing issues as
legitimate (when justificating address space requests was a thing), the
counterpart could be implicit.

De-agregating a /22 is legitimate in many cases, especially when it's
your only available block. Restricting route objects or RPKI will lead
to *weaken routing's security* and *reduce the registry's quality*.

It would also make it impossible to mitigate BGP hijacking if a
legitimate announce cannot counter a more specific illegitimate one.

* Not concise enough

The proposal actually means "Every /8 PA is now a PI". Such policy
should be written in its simpliest form, which in this case is an 8
words sentence.

* Not adressing the multi-LIR issue

If such proposal AND the re-authorization of multiple LIR account per
member both gets to pass, it would almost feel legitimate to create
multiple LIRs in order to be allowed to secure our networks by
de-agregating some critical prefixes off it.

Encouraging the waste of address space seems incompatible with the
community's best interests.

* Unclear non-transferability

There are two kinds of possible transfers :

- The legitimate one is Mergure and Acquisition, which reflects real
network and business events.
- The crook's one is the listing service, used to get profits off
privatizing the public domain.

Only the second one should be banned, or mergure and acquisitions won't
be properly reflected into the registry.

* Unfairness to new entrants

The issue regarding new entrants with legitimate needs for more than a
/22 beeing unable to compete against incubents, who never had to justify
their dispendious tendancies regarding ERXs and over /16 PAs, could be
considered as unlawfull to some market authorities.



Considering these 4 major points (and the pedantic one), I would hope
for immediate dismissal of the proposal.


Best regards,


-- 
Jérôme Nicolle
+33 6 19 31 27 14

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

[remco.vanm...@gmail.com]

It means it's not allocated PI, in line with the other definitions in chapter 7.

Remco

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Aleksey Bulgakov" <aleksbulga...@gmail.com>
To: "Gert Doering" <g...@space.net>
Cc: "Marco Schmidt" <mschm...@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" 
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the 
Final /8 Policy)
Date: Tue, May 17, 2016 17:03

ALLOCATED FINAL: This address space has been allocated to an LIR and
no assignments made from it are portable.

What does it mean "are portable"?

2016-05-17 16:38 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering <g...@space.net>:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:01:17PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> I'd politely like to ask the chairs to do two things:
>>
>> 1. declare their opinion on whether 2015-05 reached consensus
>
> Right now, we have no consensus to move forward.  We're currently
> discussing with the proposers what to do next - extend the discussion
> phase (to formally include the RIPE72 AP WG meeting), or withdraw.
>
>> 2. use the bunfight which is inevitably going to happen in Copenhagen to
>> allow them to exercise more restraint about what sort of proposals hit
>> the mailing list in future so that we don't spend years wasting time
>> squabbling about the dregs sitting at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation
>> barrel.
>
> I'm hearing you, and we think this discussion is indeed necessary (to be
> held on wednesday about 09:30-10:30) to see whether there is general WG
> consensus to move towards a more liberal (2015-05-ish), strict (2016-03-ish),
> or "leave it as it is!" last /8 policy.  And then, decide what to do with
> upcoming policy proposals.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

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

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

ALLOCATED FINAL: This address space has been allocated to an LIR and
no assignments made from it are portable.

What does it mean "are portable"?

2016-05-17 16:38 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:01:17PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> I'd politely like to ask the chairs to do two things:
>>
>> 1. declare their opinion on whether 2015-05 reached consensus
>
> Right now, we have no consensus to move forward.  We're currently
> discussing with the proposers what to do next - extend the discussion
> phase (to formally include the RIPE72 AP WG meeting), or withdraw.
>
>> 2. use the bunfight which is inevitably going to happen in Copenhagen to
>> allow them to exercise more restraint about what sort of proposals hit
>> the mailing list in future so that we don't spend years wasting time
>> squabbling about the dregs sitting at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation
>> barrel.
>
> I'm hearing you, and we think this discussion is indeed necessary (to be
> held on wednesday about 09:30-10:30) to see whether there is general WG
> consensus to move towards a more liberal (2015-05-ish), strict (2016-03-ish),
> or "leave it as it is!" last /8 policy.  And then, decide what to do with
> upcoming policy proposals.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:52, Sascha Luck [ml]  wrote:
> 
> So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to existing LIRs?

It has been that way ever since SRI first started doling out Class A, B and C 
blocks in the 1980s.

No matter what the prevailing policy might be, new LIRs are by definition going 
to be disadvantaged because the NCC and the RIR system more generally has a far 
smaller (and almost empty) pool of IPv4 address space to allocate from. Get 
over it. We can’t conjure up an infinite supply of IPv4 space to give everyone 
at least as much as they think they need. The only question now is to decide 
what’s the best or least worst to share that pain of distributing what’s left.

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:01, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> so that we don't spend years wasting time squabbling about the dregs sitting 
> at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation barrel.

However... our mission, if we choose to accept it, could be to waste time 
squabbling over these last dregs policy proposals until long after the IPv4 
pool has gone. :-)

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

[Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu]

Dear Remco,

For a few months now, we have been talking on how to give some supplementary 
IP’s to LIR’s and now you are proposing a policy to retrieve back some already 
allocated IP space?

Even if we are in the afterlife of IPv4, you cannot force the return of /22’s 
from the last /8 after a merger or acquisition.

How do will RIPE plan to deal with the already transferred /22’s from the /8, 
or the already sub allocated IP spaces?
There are many LIR’s that announce more than 1 /22’s from the /8, we should try 
to focus on the abuse and not dramatically change a policy that almost works.

At this moment I have no idea how but maybe we should implement an anti-abuse 
policy with full powered department that can deal with ‘creative 
interpretations’?

I really do understand your good intention here but instead of fixing the 
‘creative interpretations’ it will cause more and more issues.

I am against this proposal as it is unfair, and some or maybe of us do not 
agree with retroactively policies, we already know how the work from our 
governments :)

Thanks,


-- 
Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu
Sent with Airmail

On 17 May 2016 at 15:09:14, Remco van Mook (remco.vanm...@gmail.com) wrote:


Thank you Marco. 

Dear colleagues,

Yes, this is another policy proposal about IPv4. It's even about the current 
allocation policy (confusingly known as 'last /8'). I'm sorry it's come to this.

The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of the last 
/8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and lock it down 
against creative interpretations.

We're in the IPv4 afterlife, and have been for about 3.5 years. The last scrap 
of IPv4 space that any LIR can get is meant for a specific purpose - to 
facilitate migration to IPv6. The age of the 32 bit integers is over. The other 
purpose of the 'last /8' policy is to be able to hand out IPv4 space to new 
entrants for as long as feasible. These specific purposes are currently not 
reflected anywhere once a block has been allocated, and this proposal means to 
change that. To summarise the proposed changes:

- All allocations handed out under the 'last /8 policy' will be (re-)registered 
as 'ALLOCATED FINAL';
- Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or 
sub-allocated;
- Any LIR can hold up to a /22 of 'ALLOCATED FINAL' address space, regardless 
of how they got it;
- Any excess space will have to be returned to the RIEP NCC within 180 days 
(however I don't intend that this is applied retroactively); 
- DNS reverse delegation will be limited to the LIR itself, and is limited to a 
total of a /22 in space.

And, outside of policy but enforceable as business rules following from this 
policy proposal:
- No RPKI for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a single /22
- No routing registry entries for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a single /22

Basically, every LIR gets 1 allocation, and if you no longer need it or you end 
up having more, you have to return the excess. All the extra limitations should 
be workable if you're using the space the way it was intended, but make it 
unattractive to collect allocations for other purposes.

Let's hear your thoughts. I'll be at the RIPE meeting next week where I'll be 
talking about this proposal during the first APWG session.

Kind regards,

Remco van Mook
(no hats)


On 17 May 2016, at 14:05 , Marco Schmidt  wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several 
restrictions:

-    These allocation are not transferrable
-    LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
-    Sub-allocations are not possible
-    Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party

You can find the full proposal at:

   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 15 June 2016.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

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

[Nick Hilliard]

Like the curate's egg, this proposal is good in parts. Here's the good part:

> - Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
> all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
> been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA

The rest of the proposal is - like the rest of the curate's egg - best
deposited in the compost bin.

Specifically, it will not deal with the problem that the RIPE NCC was
set up to do, namely to ensure accurate registration of resources.  On
the contrary, it will encourage black-market transfer of /22s and
probably a proliferation of one-allocation-per-shelf-company
allocations, because paying €1400 per annum for 1024 addresses is still
a cheaper option in the medium term than buying addresses outright on
the market (1024/€1400 = €0.73 per address per annum).

At this stage, APWG is being trolled with "let's change the last /8
policy" proposals.  It's clear that there isn't consensus on 2015-05 and
that there won't be any consensus on this proposal either, so I'd
politely like to ask the chairs to do two things:

1. declare their opinion on whether 2015-05 reached consensus

2. use the bunfight which is inevitably going to happen in Copenhagen to
allow them to exercise more restraint about what sort of proposals hit
the mailing list in future so that we don't spend years wasting time
squabbling about the dregs sitting at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation
barrel.

(ap-wg chairs: for the record, this is a "I object" email).

Nick

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

[Dominik Nowacki]

Hello,
I disagree with the proposal.

Any such proposal would cause issues with ability of smaller players merging 
into larger ones, effectively blocking them becoming competitive to the long 
established LIRs, effectively giving an unfair advantage to the big players.

Kind Regards,
Dominik
Clouvider Limited

From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Remco van Mook
Sent: 17 May 2016 13:08
To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the 
Final /8 Policy)


Thank you Marco.

Dear colleagues,

Yes, this is another policy proposal about IPv4. It's even about the current 
allocation policy (confusingly known as 'last /8'). I'm sorry it's come to this.

The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of the last 
/8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and lock it down 
against creative interpretations.

We're in the IPv4 afterlife, and have been for about 3.5 years. The last scrap 
of IPv4 space that any LIR can get is meant for a specific purpose - to 
facilitate migration to IPv6. The age of the 32 bit integers is over. The other 
purpose of the 'last /8' policy is to be able to hand out IPv4 space to new 
entrants for as long as feasible. These specific purposes are currently not 
reflected anywhere once a block has been allocated, and this proposal means to 
change that. To summarise the proposed changes:

- All allocations handed out under the 'last /8 policy' will be (re-)registered 
as 'ALLOCATED FINAL';
- Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or 
sub-allocated;
- Any LIR can hold up to a /22 of 'ALLOCATED FINAL' address space, regardless 
of how they got it;
- Any excess space will have to be returned to the RIEP NCC within 180 days 
(however I don't intend that this is applied retroactively);
- DNS reverse delegation will be limited to the LIR itself, and is limited to a 
total of a /22 in space.

And, outside of policy but enforceable as business rules following from this 
policy proposal:
- No RPKI for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a single /22
- No routing registry entries for any 'ALLOCATED FINAL' blocks over a single /22

Basically, every LIR gets 1 allocation, and if you no longer need it or you end 
up having more, you have to return the excess. All the extra limitations should 
be workable if you're using the space the way it was intended, but make it 
unattractive to collect allocations for other purposes.

Let's hear your thoughts. I'll be at the RIPE meeting next week where I'll be 
talking about this proposal during the first APWG session.

Kind regards,

Remco van Mook
(no hats)


On 17 May 2016, at 14:05 , Marco Schmidt 
<mschm...@ripe.net<mailto:mschm...@ripe.net>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several 
restrictions:

-These allocation are not transferrable
-LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
-Sub-allocations are not possible
-Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party

You can find the full proposal at:

   https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 15 June 
2016.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

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

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged
LIRs and are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8
you're fine. It does stop future cases though.


So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to existing
LIRs? I'm sure that will look just *great* in court.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

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

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
These ???final /22??? allocations will receive a separate status with 
several restrictions:


-These allocation are not transferrable
-LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
-Sub-allocations are not possible
-Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party


I would like to see a statement from NCC Legal on the legality of
any of these proposals with particular emphasis on EU "barrier to
entry" legislation.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

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

[boggits]

On 17 May 2016 at 13:08, Remco van Mook  wrote:

>
> Let's hear your thoughts. I'll be at the RIPE meeting next week where I'll
> be talking about this proposal during the first APWG session.
>

So this includes LIR's who already have (through acquisition of other
companies) multiple /22 from the last /8

That kinda sucks...

In general I can see the point *but* please can we just stack the
deckchairs neatly on the side and get into the boats...


J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476

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

[Remco van Mook]

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:33 , Denis Fondras  wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
>> 
>> - Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or
>> sub-allocated;
> 
> Will current 'ALLOCATED PA' be changed to 'ALLOCATED FINAL' ?
> 

For allocations handed out after 'final /8' came into effect, yes.

Remco



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Denis Fondras]

Hello all,

> 
> - Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or
> sub-allocated;

Will current 'ALLOCATED PA' be changed to 'ALLOCATED FINAL' ?

Denis

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

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with 
several restrictions:


-These allocation are not transferrable
-LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
-Sub-allocations are not possible
-Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 15 June 2016.

Regards

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC