[address-policy-wg] Join the Address Policy WG Discussions Tomorrow

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear colleagues,

Tomorrow at RIPE 72, the Address Policy Working Group will be discussing 
the following policy proposals:


- 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
- 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
- 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"

While no decisions are made during this session, it’s a good opportunity 
to discuss the proposals and give feedback directly to the proposers.


If you can't attend tomorrow’s session in person, you can participate 
remotely. The following link will provide you with a live webstream and 
a chat client.


https://ripe72.ripe.net/live/main/

The session begins at 07:00 UTC on 25 May 2016.

We encourage you to join the discussion if you have an opinion about one 
of these proposals.


The second Address Policy Working Group session begins at 9:00 UTC on 
the same day and includes a presentation on "Market Concentration in the 
Transfer of IPv4 Space”, as well as feedback from the RIPE NCC's 
Registration Services Department. We invite you to tune in to see these 
presentations as well.


Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

[address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Developments in IPv4 Transfers

[Mirjam Kuehne]

Dear colleagues,

In May 2015, we looked at IPv4 transfers in the RIPE NCC service region
and found signs of an emerging market. Both the number and size of
transfers conducted under RIPE Policy showed an upward trend in the
years 2013-2014.

One year later, we take another look. Did this trend continue? What have
been the effects of the inter-RIR transfer policy?

Please read on RIPE Labs:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/developments-in-ipv4-transfers?pk_campaign=labs_kwd=list-apwg

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
RIPE NCC

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi everybody,

> We have had that discussion here on the list. Let's finish this with a 
> constructive discussion on Thursday.

The RIPE meeting has just started its second day, and my brain has already 
melted down.
s/Thursday/Wednesday/

Repeat: the session is on WEDNESDAY

Sorry for the confusion

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)

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

[Garry Glendown]

Hi *,

initially reading, nowadays just browsing over the posts about 2015-05,
I don't get it ...

Yes, I understand the pain new LIRs have with the limited availability
of v4 addresses. We have a small local provider, a small city that has
gone through the trouble of installing a FO infrastructure to provide
high-speed internet to most of its citizens, and has to do with their
/22 assignment (they became an LIR to get those) for something around
(currently) 3k customers, of those something like 100+ businesses. They
run native v6 dual-stacked with CGN v4, which - especially for the
business customers - isn't the optimal solution (just using a /29 for
each business would more or less deplete their public v4 range). So yes,
they would love to get more v4, but they can't.

I keep reading phrases like "it's not fair", "it's anti-competitive".
Hell yes it is. But business has never been fair. If you're coming late
to a supper, you may not get all the best pieces of the food that was
available at the beginning. If you're late to the business, many
customers will already have found a different provider for their
requirements and will often not even talk to you. So what, you have to
live with it. You knew you were a late entry, if you didn't know what
you were getting into, if you are surprised by the limitations of both
the market itself and RIPE specifically, you obviously didn't do your
homework! Heck, even if you already have a /20, /19 or whatever and are
running out of v4 addresses - why are you surprised? v4 was running out
a long time ago, which was only delayed by NAT "technology", a kluge to
allow for a better technology (IPv6) to be finished and rolled out - 15
years later and too many providers still do not see the necessity of
rolling out v6.

Who is to blame? Well, of course those providers, most likely ones that
still have sufficient amounts of free v4 addresses. To a minor degree
possibly their customers, as they ought to be requesting dual-stacked
internet from their ISPs. But why should they? Everything is working,
and setting up v6 doesn't (in most cases) earn them any benefits.

So what could be done? Technically, not much I guess. Sure, we could
level the playing field, the RIRs could pass a policy retracting half of
all assigned v4 addresses annually from anybody holding - say - /20 or
larger. Even going down to 50% would most likely require many LIRs to
actually roll out v6, apart from annoy a whole lot of people, as the
ISPs would be forced to renumber the remaining IP assignments to their
customers.

Would such a policy change be enforceable? I doubt it, or at the very
least many of the larger ISPs will fight it with all they have (read:
law suits).

So, as it is, we have a situation in which many large ISPs give a f*ck
about the IPv4 scarcity, stick with their pool of v4 addresses and wait
until actual customers request v6, which won't happen, so there is no
business case to implement it for quite some time. Many other ISPs have
to make do, and are at a weaker business position than should be
necessary, but there's nothing we as a RIPE community can do except keep
up the current policy to at least allow for SOME possibility of getting
on the net for new entries, and keep pushing v6 in the market, in a hope
to make customers aware of the necessity of v6 to THEIR business! Maybe
then more ISPs will finally invest in the future of their part of the
Internet.

Oh, and just in case you were still wondering: I'm against loosening the
last /8 policy ...

Garry

--