The main design goal for the final /8 policy was to make sure that
newcomers still had the possibility of participating on the IPv4
internet. It is unfortunately still not possible to run an ISP, hoster
etc. with only IPv6. Without the final /8 policy every new company
would have to get
we can blame serge, who shifted the meeting left one week from it's
traditional time, and thus conflicted with our tenth wedding anniversary :)
You can't blame Serge for your poor planning in a wedding date ... You
knew 10 years ago that there is a RIPE meeting in may ;)
and it has always
RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE
NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is
individual having an interest not corporations being part of a
commercial structure.
the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community,
Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking,
everyone's opinion is listened to.
Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of
show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments,
I think you can understand that it's a bit hard
What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections
against the proposal have been properly considered.
how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed.
it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but
through the DoS and ad homina,
Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree
i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding
the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
randy
Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are
skipping IPv4 completely?
i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the you
should be using ipv6 religion.
I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of
their developing stage.
yep.
you may also find
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WGChairTraining/rtgwg_train_2.pdf
useful
I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass.
from what i understand, discussion of this proposal has already closed.
i was traveling, so came on a week of (so called)
One correction to my last post no provider today will be able provide
end customer IPv6 access only network
i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this
randy
A user in this case is a human using his/her/its
mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi
network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a
local Freifunk node).
It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the
Freifunk
... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is
either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to
every site on the Internet) with open eyes ...
or deploying nat. wanna guess which has more takers?
I've noted as an argument opposing this proposal: An adversary could
try to deplete the pool of available ASNs. If someone has a workable
suggestion how to resolve that in policy, I am all ears, but I wouldn't
mind a pragmatic approach where we just trust our community and deal
with issues if
If at some point in the future, the NCC or community discovers some
child has abused the system and taken an absurd number of ASNs, the
NCC has the power to revoke the ASNs under sections 6.3, 9.3, and 9.4
of the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement.
there lurk lawyers. i don't think you want
>>> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
> Encouraging and stimulating it OTOH, could have been skipped/avoided.
the true believers tried to pretend they could hold back the water for
many years. some are still in
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> Can we limit it this to a /X to see what the impact is before throwing
> the entire remaining v4 space under a bus?
first, i think all LIRs with POCs whose family name begins with B should
get a /16
randy
> The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as
> far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to
> this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves
> without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address
> space.
> It was obvious that many of the new members registered after 2012 need
> more than the default /22.
what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
out, ...?"
remco said it well. the last /8 policy is designed so children born
after this apocalypse have a few drops of
>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>> out, ...?"
> Please, give away the last blocks of IPv4 so it really is gone for good.
please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including
smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity.
randy
> Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
What do you mean cheap talk?
One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you?
no. there is a simple a process (eurocratic though it may be). submit
a proposal. it is not that hard. as you said, marco is kind enough to
help.
fwiw, i, and i assume many others, would
> 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
> For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer, the
> solution is not working yet" situation.
what solution is not working for you?
randy, running v6 commercially since '97
believing ipv4 allocation as an incentive for ipv6 deployment is yet
another in a long line of ipv6 marketing fantasies/failures. sure, give
them a v6 prefix, and they may even announce it. but will they convert
their infrastructure, oss, back ends, customers, ... to ipv6? that
decision is
you may find reading the actual last /8 policy informative.
> Last /8 is not really get affected by this policy.
> - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space
> outside 185/8
this is misleading or just sadly misinformed
last /8 is not an address range, it is a
> P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool
> into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP
> pool received from IANA.
that's nice. as i said a bit ago, you may want to read the last /8
policy and not start trying to redifine terms.
it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put
in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get
IPv4 space.
randy
i seek co-authors for a policy to make the last /8 allocation a /24
randy
> I seriously liking the idea of some APNIC colleagues "no more v4
> policy from today on".
that was my proposal. the sitting apnic address policy chair went into
bureaucratic insanity and drowned it.
we could try it here.
randy
>> well, it is some years too late for it to go along with the last /8,
>> policy unless you have a time machine. but it might mean we won't have
>> to deal with the endless proposals to modify the last /8 policy which
>> seem to come up every year, flood the mailing list, and eventually fail.
>
i do not support pigs at the last /8 trough
the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.
pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
randy
> My LIR have got ALLOCATED PI and ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks about
> 20 years ago, according to those days policy. Some part of address space
> was not aggregated and was used as "ASSIGNED PI within ALLOCATED PI",
> all of them have agreement with the LIR, which also was within the
>
> Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI"
> and "not really real PI".
is there a list of all the colors and what they mean?
> This proposal aims to unify all PI into one colour, which I think is
> good for the resource holders (no uncertainity) - but there is
>
> I used to assume there is "ALLOCATED PA", "ASSIGNED PA" and "ASSIGNED PI",
> and those are well-defined. Add "Legacy" to it (outside RIR framework).
inetnum:198.180.150.0 - 198.180.153.255
netname:RG79-198-180-150
country:US
org:ORG-RG79-RIPE
sponsoring-org:
> If I would moderate the list I would remove people
let's not
> I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader
> says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins
> just sit in the room and applause.
i assure you that this is not just from communist
> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is
> strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.
i understand your position. but my problems are up a couple of layers.
we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot
of new members. while
> PUBLIC IP addresses have given to us to use not to trade. We haven't
> paid for getting them, and we are not the owner.
today, they are not given to us; we pay to rent them. yes, we are
renting integers.
> Need password
ofBogDog8\9buw4bXLoGvn.
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR
> Legacy updates" is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all
> changes to the holdership of legacy resources in the existing transfer
> statistics.
that is not a
> Let me provide some insight on how Inter-RIR legacy transfer go from,
> for instance ARIN to RIPE.
i think there was a presentation on the actualy reality of this at some
yuroopian ops meeting. see
https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf
randy
at yesterday's address policy statement, i was quite incorrect when i
said that updated or obsoleted rfcs were marked. they are not.
the index entry is marked. the rfcB obsoliting rfcA is marked as such.
but rfcA is not marked as modified.
apologies.
randy
>> do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not
>> yet asked for a final /22?
> So, 13950 /22s between Q4/2012 and today, hence i would say your
> answer is around 2404 LIRs (16354-13950).
i tend to agree with the suggestion that folk with ipv4 space already
are not
> Then they have to buy addresses in the market. I keep running into
> people who claim "look, RIPE is not out of IPv4 addresses, the IPv4
> exhaustion is just a hype/FUD".
people will say all sorts of stupid things; funny monkeys we are. this
does not mean we should use technology to teach
> I think it would be better to allocate /19 or bigger.
see the section on abrogating our responsibilities for stewardship
if ipv6 can not seel itself, all the pressure will do is make even more
nats. we don't really want that.
oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy.
well
> Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the
> run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?
and you believe that there will be zero desirable ipv4 destinations on the
internet by then? sure does not look like it as far as i can see.
and if a new
a bit of history for those with short term vision
1995, and large providers were running out of ram to hold the table.
sprint was the closest to the edge and falling over; but others were
not far behind and could smell the coffee. these were the days
where we all intimately knew
>> When do we distribute 240/4 among the RIRs as "really last /8s"?
>
> I made that question myself during an ICANN meeting (the only i
> attended) 10 years ago. The answer was something about operating
> systems' stacks. I wasn't fully convinced, but a large majority of
> internet plumbers seems
>> as a friend wrote privately
>> I would be interested to have a person who is 16 years old reply:
>> "I am planning to open my own internet company in 4 years; can you
>> please save some address space for me, 'til I finish high school?"
>> But of course, there is no such person
it might be wise to avoid the eternal rat-hole of what will and will not
increase ipv6 deployment. whether we like it or not, and whether we
excoriate the folk who have not deployed or not, history has shown that
we do not know.
there are no more 32-bit integers. ipv6 is horrifyingly and
> I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify
> /22.
i think there are a vast number of entities which could justify a /16.
so? there is this little problem. 2^32 is bounded.
randy
> The rationale for this is to make RIR-allocated ipv4 address space
> string out a bit longer by raising the price and dropping the size.
did it say anything about price? i missed that? i did not think the AP
WG dealt with pricing; so it would be pretty strange.
> It is not convincing to
> You're correct in saying that APWG does not deal with pricing, but
> it's a bit jesuitical not to acknowledge that the practical impact of
> this policy change will be a dramatic increase in RIR-allocated ipv4
> addresses.
someone wrote to me saying the same thing. but they added that the
> Over half of the table is made-up of /24s; that is not a coincidence.
once it was /19. welcome to life.
randy
>>> They are beyond help
>>
>> not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and
>> other NATs of many flavors.
>
> Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation policy point of
> view" :)
sorry. but having spent blood and tears on ipv6 deployment for over 20
years,
[ generally good analysis ]
> The only use case RIPE NCC should assign new IPv4 address space for is
> for documented and needed v6 transitions services
do not make rules you can not measure or enforce. it weakens the
credibility of the rest of the structure.
randy
> In both scenarios relying on only IPv4 is insanity,
it's a business decision, and probably has many factors behind it. you
and i might think it unwise, but 'insanity' is a bit in the weeds.
> They are beyond help
not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and
other NATs
> P.S : This time I use my v6 smtp server even though at home I cannot
> still use a v6 prefix ;)
interesting to see the whole trail.
Received: from psg.com ([2001:418:1::62])
by ran.psg.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.86_2)
> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
i will not snark about history
hi gert,
> I'm fairly sure Randy tried to politely bring across the message that
> "we had a global registry first, and then split it up into regional
> IRs, because that's what made sense, and still does".
well, i could have been polite :)
and i am less sure i want to strongly assert that the
> So the focus needs to be "what is an IPv6 PI policy that is useful for
> the RIPE region".
>
> Wether or not this is the same as what we had for IPv4 in the past is
> only of historic relevance.
after all, as humans have proven time and time again, we have nothing
to learn from history :)
> But how tenable is it both in principle and in 'Internet governance'
> terms for the NCC to collect fragmentlets of IPv4 and just sit on
> them?
not. many will have sharp edges. :)
> So we need a policy to allocate them in a useful manner.
>
> The question before us is: What is the minimum
> In this specific case would you call the NCC "the police", or would
> you classify who informs the NCC as "the police"...? :-)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Leben_der_Anderen
>> Hmm.. why shouldn't defunct IXPs not be taken in consideration
>> though?
> Because they will have handed back their address space.
what are you trying to measure? the space utilization of current
operating exchanges, or the distribution of request sizes?
randy
> https://github.com/mwichtlh/address-policy-wg/
nice
randy
perhaps, as it is, imiho, more address policy than anti-spam, the
anti-abuse wg proposal 2019-03
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
would be worth a bit of consideration as address policy?
randy
>> perhaps, as it is, imiho, more address policy than anti-spam, the
>> anti-abuse wg proposal 2019-03
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
>> would be worth a bit of consideration as address policy?
> We'll certainly give a HEADS UP to the AP WG
that is all i was
> Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" is now in
> the Review Phase.
/me supports
we are here to do what we can to make the internet work. this helps by
making connectivity as available as possible given the circumstances.
randy
> Legacy resources don’t fall under the contractual obligations that we
> as a community have setup. Financial or policy, unless decided/afreed
> upon by legacy resources themselves.
in a police state, there is no concern for contractual obligations
from the ncc 'certifying' net engs to
hi carlos,
> My understanding (and i'm not a lawyer, so i won't risk any comments
> about liability) is that the RIPE NCC can't force anything to a Legacy
> Resource Holder, outside the established contract for services
> provision. That one, also states the possibility for the RIPE NCC to
> stop
>> how about /24.5? :)
> Brilliant idea ;)
back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for,
and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space. i probably have the record of
it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule.
randy
> I strongly agree with Nick and support version 2.0. No need to produce
> a revision changing the default away from /24.
how about /24.5? :)
enough already. ship it.
randy
i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg.
randy
brian,
>> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg.
> I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all,
> why?
i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything
being recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net
>> And if you do agree with the policy moving forward, please let it
>> know in the Last Call phase as well, as it is easier for us as
>> Chairs to call consensus or not, if we have some response.
>
> I support this going forward.
/me 2
sorry. as it has not changed, my opinion has not ( yes, sometimes it
does :). so i still support it.
randy
> Because it's not rational or meaningful to do that. There's no reason
> to assume that there's a static, unchanging binding between address
> space and an ASN.
if there was, we would not need routing :)
further, there is no actual _routing_ binding of an AS to a member LIR
identity. i.e. an
perhaps, instead of really rude ad homina, you could try to be
constructive by finding and nominating a really excellent candidate
or two.
randy
> You are, however, running for election in which I and other members
> get to vote.
>
> Do you honestly think anyone in their right mind is going to vote for
> you after this childish and highly unprofessional behaviour?
well, i imagine he may get a few votes just to piss ron g off :)
randy
plonk
> In this article Vasileios Giotsas summarises the results of a detailed
> study of how transferred IPv4 prefixes are misused in the wild by
> synthesising an array of longitudinal IP blacklists, honeypot data, and
> AS reputation lists:
>
>
> The most sensible approach in the circumstances is leave it and move
> on.
considering it is his birthday, WWRS? i suspect about what you just
said.
randy
>>> C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing
>>> allocations for the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting
>>> with zero, the higher the priority.
>>
>> if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR
>> with any existing allocation be given more?
>
> C) IPv4 waiting list priority follows the size of existing allocations for
> the LIR. The lower amount of allocations, starting with zero, the higher
> the priority.
if the purpose of new allocations is to allow entry, why would an LIR
with any existing allocation be given more?
randy
--
To
> I think that I speak for the WG, that the intent for the final /8
> policy and the waitinglist policy, is to provide IPv4 (at least a
> small bit) to newcomers
as a co-author of that polocy, my memory is indeed the intent was to
allow newcomers to get a small bit of space for as long as
> Sander was right though: we're talking about rearranging the deck
> chairs on the Titanic
any betting pool on how many years the titanic will be the only viable
ship of entry for newcomers? i'll take a decade.
no, we don't like it. and it goes against the loudest religion. but
packets gotta
it would help me at least if folk giving legal opinions could make clear
in what juristriction they are an actual lawyer? thanks.
randy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
> Again, the main point is to ensure the speedy management of the
> current issue by RIPE NCC in line with its policies and the EU
> positions
knowing the ncc and its legal team a bit, i am confident they are
doing so. not being a lawyer myself, my opinion on how and what
they should do is not
> I *do* like the suggestion Daniel Karrenberg made how to tackle this -
> give the NCC more liberty how to handle "experiments" by consulting,
> if needed, with an expert panel. I do see the issue in defining
> "expert", but maybe this could be made sufficiently lightweight - "ask
> for a
erik,
> I think that the time for the temp assignment to be made, stretched to
> 1 year or more, will become an issue for the NCC to work with.
the current policy allows the ncc to go up to a year
> Not only of the point that Gert made, but also because it will make
> the life of the IPRA's
ok, i did it again, tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. while
the immediate problem is past, thanks to the ncc reg folk, i fear that
we could benefit from thinking a bit more about $subject.
for a research experiment, we wanted eight or a dozen routable, i.e.
/24, prefixes which we would
two additional good ideas contributed by an anonymous donor:
- requests should differentiate whether the need is for a block or
whether scattered (routable?) addgress space would do. e.g. a
meeting might prefer a block, a routing experiment separate /24s
- the address space MUST be returned
mornin' leo
>> - the address space MUST be returned to the NCC as clean or cleaner
>> than when it was loaned out
>
> This is a nice idea. Do you have a practical proposal for
> implementation?
depends on if/how you mess it up. and if you can not describe this to
the ncc reg folk, they
>> for a research experiment, we wanted eight or a dozen routable, i.e.
>> /24, prefixes which we would announce from various places in the
>> topology. each /24 would have one pingable address, let's assume .42.
>
> This is a tough nut.
>
> I can totally see what you do, and understand what
> We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE
> Database issues.
perhaps wg members are deterred by the walls of text with strong
directives and opinions from a dominating co-chair (who lost the
election but somehow is still here)?
nothing the db wg does is worth the effort
> Again we are back to asking the question, "What is the purpose of the
> RIPE Database in 2022?".
in this case, same as it ever was. same as it ever was.
randy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
>>> Again we are back to asking the question, "What is the purpose of
>>> the RIPE Database in 2022?".
>> in this case, same as it ever was. same as it ever was.
> And you may ask yourself “what is this RIPE database?”
but it is not once in a lifetime. this mind-game of omphaloskepsis
leo
> As a reminder, this proposal would set "the minimum assignment size to
> a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by
> the End User.
i tried a similar proposal some years back. it was shot down. so i
guess i have to support this incarnation. good luck.
( i have
> This part of the proposal is intended to foster the adoption of the
> technology.
i think they should not get space unless they serve me a really tasty
paella
or, less obliquely, could we please keep religion out of operating the
internet?
randy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> The proposal looks ok to me.
+1
i could nit pick, but will refrain.
ramdy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
nick,
> 2. what is a "special circumstance"?
maybe "unforseen" would be better? from an old CII preso
If it was part of the “plan” it’s an event, if it is not then
it’s a “disaster”
randy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
hi,
2023-04 Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments (which you
may have mis-understood) aside, i am intellectually curious, but ianal,
and i try not to play one on the net.
i think i understand your concerns to a fair extent. the more and more
accurate data leo can access without a
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
