ripe address policy working group
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG RIPE 62, Amsterdam 1'
&
$
%
RIPE Address Policy Working Group
May 5, 2011
RIPE 62, Amsterdam
WG Chairs: Gert Doring, & Sander Steffann
please remember: this session is webcast
![Page 2: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG overall Agenda
• A. administrative matters
• B. current policy topics in all regions, presentation
• D. on IPv6 Documentation Requirements
• E. feedback from the NCC Registration Services
• L. on IPv6 PI Policy
• M. discussion of open policy proposals - IPv6 related
• N. on (Address) Transfer Guidelines
• C. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - update
• T. discussion of open policy proposals - IPv4
• U. on IPv6 allocations and 6rd
2
![Page 3: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG Agenda - Thursday
• A. administrative matters– thanking the scribe
– approving the minutes from RIPE 61 (Rome)
– agenda bashing
• B. current policy topics - Emilio Madaio
– RIPE policy and PDP update
– Worldwide Look by Topic
• D. On IPv6 Documentation Requirements - Marco Hogewoning
– short presentation on the policy change 2010-06 and use of
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
• Y. Open Policy Hour
– IPv4 Assignments to IXPs from the Last /8 - Andy
Davidson / EIX WG
3
![Page 4: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG Agenda - Thursday (2)
• E. Feedback from NCC Registration Services - Alex Le Heux
– feedback from day-to-day NCC registration services work
– bring up issues that the WG might not be aware of yet
– ASN 32 assignments - global overview
– planned implementation details for the “Last /8”
– policy for upgrading “initial /32 IPv6 allocation” assigned
to large carriers to “something that is large enough for their
needs”
– typical IPv6 PI discussions between RIPE members and the
NCC RS – “this is where the sore spots are”
• coffee break
4
![Page 5: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG Agenda - Thursday (3)
• L. On IPv6 Policy - Gert Doring, WG Chair
– explanation of the genesis of the current IPv6 PA/PI
policies
– proposal how to re-do the IPv6 allocation framework
– discussion!
• M. discussion of open policy proposals, IPv6 related
– 2011-02 - Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
• N. On Transfer Guidelines - Dave Wilson
– bringing non-obvious problems with transfers into the open
– collect feedback, funnel into RIPE BCP document
• lunch break, end of thursday’s APWG meeting
5
![Page 6: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG Agenda - Friday
• welcome back
• C. document cosmetic surgeries project - Emilio Madaio
– update on current status
– how to go forward?
• T. discussion of open policy proposals
– 2006-05 IPv4 PI Assignment Size (WG Chair)
– 2010-01 Temporary Internet Number Policies (WG Chair)
– 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders
(WG chair - version 4 update, status)
– 2011-01 global policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation
mechanisms by the IANA (WG Chair)
6
![Page 7: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
APWG Agenda - Friday (2)
• U. On IPv6 Allocations and 6RD
– Jan Zorz and Mark Townsley
• Y. Open Policy Hour
• AOB
7
![Page 8: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
Agenda Bashing
• do you want to see anything changed?
• is something missing?
8
![Page 9: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
Minutes from RIPE 61 (Rome)
• have been circulated on the mailing list
• no comments so far
• more feedback? Any inaccuracies that need correcting?
9
![Page 10: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG current policy topics'
&
$
%
B. current policy topics
• presentation by Emilio Madaio
10
![Page 11: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG AGGREGATED-BY-LIR'
&
$
%
D. On IPv6 Documentation Requirements
• presentation by Marco Hogewoning
11
![Page 12: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG please participate'
&
$
%
before entering the discussions...
• No decisions are made here(!). This is to get feedback to the
proposers and to get a feel for the Working Group’s opinions.
• Consensus based process based on the open mailing list.
• please remember to speak into the microphone
• please speak your name, so the scribes can properly attribute
what you said
• the session is webcast, so people who couldn’t come to
Amsterdam can still be participate
• remote feedback can be provided by IRC
12
![Page 13: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG open policy proposals'
&
$
%
Y. Open Policy Hour
• IPv4 Assigmments to IXPs from the Last /8
– Andy Davidson, EIX WG chair
– (normally Open Policy Hour is at the end of the APWG session, but we
conflict with EIX on Friday)
13
![Page 14: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG feedback from RS'
&
$
%
E. Feedback from NCC Registration Services
• presentation by Alex le Heux
• . . . based on day-to-day operations in NCC RS
• ASN 32 assignments - global overview
• planned implementation details for the “Last /8”
• policy for upgrading “initial /32 IPv6 allocation” assigned to
large carriers to “something that is large enough for their
needs”
• typical IPv6 PI discussions between RIPE members and the
NCC RS – “this is where the sore spots are”
• the big PI discussion is after the coffee break
14
![Page 15: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG feedback from RS'
&
$
%
coffee break!
• please be back at 11:00
15
![Page 16: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG feedback from RS'
&
$
%
RIPE Address Policy Working Group
May 5, 2011 / 11:00-12:30
RIPE 62, Amsterdam
WG Chairs: Gert Doring, & Sander Steffann
please remember: this session is webcast
16
![Page 17: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG Agenda'
&
$
%
Agenda for APWG Part II
• L. On IPv6 Policy - Gert Doring, WG Chair
– explanation of the genesis of the current IPv6 PA/PI
policies
– proposal how to re-do the IPv6 allocation framework
– discussion!
• M. discussion of open policy proposals, IPv6 related
– 2011-02 - Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
• N. On Transfer Guidelines - Dave Wilson
– bringing non-obvious problems with transfers into the open
– collect feedback, funnel into RIPE BCP document
• lunch break, end of thursday’s APWG meeting
17
![Page 18: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG please participate'
&
$
%
Let’s enter the discussions
• No decisions are made here(!). This is to get feedback to the
proposers and to get a feel for the Working Group’s opinions.
• Consensus based process based on the open mailing list.
• please remember to speak into the microphone
• please speak your name, so the scribes can properly attribute
what you said
• the session is webcast, so people that couldn’t come to
Amsterdam can still be participate
• remote feedback can be provided by IRC
18
![Page 19: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
returning to IPv6 PI discussion
• this is only about IPv6
• IPv4 is different, and we take this into account
• looking into the future
19
![Page 20: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
returning to IPv6 PI discussion (old slide)
• IPv4 PI policy and IPv6 PI policy are not fully in-line
– IPv6 PI policy doesn’t permit “transit network” assignment
– you can run an DSL network on IPv4 PI, but not on IPv6 PI
– IPv4 PI doesn’t require “multihoming”, IPv6 PI does
• ambiguity on border between “my network” (PI OK) and
“customer network” (PI not OK)
– for hosting / datacenter providers
• do we want this changed? if yes, how?
• background info from Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC RS
20
![Page 21: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
why is there a difference between PA and PI?
• in the end, it’s “just some numbers” given out by the RIPE
NCC to “consumers” of these numbers
• difference comes from intended use:
• PA
– intended to aggregate (A) thousands or millions of end users
into a single block, single routing table slot
– assumed that “ISP” would be RIPE member anyway
– liberal sizing, no strings attached
• PI
– intended for a single independent (I) end-user network
– not indended as “cheap replacement for RIPE membership”
– specific purpose (BGP multhoming) ⇒ strings attached
21
![Page 22: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
history of IPv6 allocation/assignment
• initial IETF model was very strict on aggregation
– “Top Level Aggregator” ISPs get a /13
– default-free zone hard bounded to 8192 routes
– question “who is worthy?” not answerable ⇒ abandoned
• initial RIR IPv6 policy (1999) gave LIRs a /35 (minimum)
– avoided TLA problem, but a bit on the small side
– changed to /32 in 2002
– still strong focus on aggregation ⇒ no PI
• since then, detail tuning of policy for allocation to LIRs
– HD ratio and end user assignment size adjusted
– removal of the requirements to announce as an aggregate
(only) from the policy (2009-06), deferring to routing WG
22
![Page 23: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
history of IPv6 allocation/assignment (2)
• IPv6 PI proposal introduced by Jordi Palet in 2006-01
– strong resistance from the “aggregation!” camp
– experience with IPv4 PI caused quite some opposition
– argument that finally got accepted: multihoming proposals
from IETF are not going anywhere (in reasonable time),
and solution needed for enterprise end-users that want to
do BGP-based multihoming with IPv6
– proposal accepted in April 2009
– lots of strings attached (multihoming, no sub-assignment)
• over time, emphasis shifted from “maximum aggregation” to
“find workable compromise, encourage use of IPv6”
23
![Page 24: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
pillars of IP address management
• registration
– clear documentation who “owns” a certain number
– goes along with verifiability in the routing system
• aggregation
– keeping the routing table under control
– trying to balance business needs/wants and global cost
• conservation
– making sure we don’t run out of addresses
– for v6, we can be more liberal, but still finite resource
24
![Page 25: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG IPv6 PI again'
&
$
%
address policy needs to balance...
• routing table
– 1 million routes will break it for everbody
• NCC costs
– we need the NCC to have a solid financial basis
• end user costs
– too expensive RIR cost will lead to creative workarounds
• usefulness
– address space acquired must be useful for the purpose
• address space efficiency
• good stewardship: encourage /48.../64 to end users
25
![Page 26: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG background data'
&
$
%
IPv6 PA and PI given out by RIRs
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2007-01 2008-01 2009-01 2010-01 2011-01
majority is still LIR alloc. (good!)
ARIN PI is catching up fast (good? bad?)
RIPE LIRRIPE othARIN LIRARIN oth
APNIC LIRAPNIC oth
LacNIC LIRLacNIC othAfriNIC LIRAfriNIC oth
26
![Page 27: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG background data'
&
$
%
prefix size in IPv6 routing table
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2007-01 2008-01 2009-01 2010-01 2011-01
unsurprisingly, majority of prefixesis /32 (LIR) and /48 (PI)
</32 /32
33-47 /48
>/48
27
![Page 28: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG change PI policy'
&
$
%
ongoing discussions about PI
• multihoming requirements
– what is multihoming and how to prove it?
– 2011-02 aims to remove this requirement
• costs
– PI seen as “cheaper way to number my ISP business”
– PI isn’t meant as such, and that causes frictions
• usage restrictions (no sub-assignment)
– “why can’t I number my datacenter customers from my PI?”
– some proposals in the discussions, nothing tangible yet
• is this detailed fine-tuning of PI policies the right approach?
28
![Page 29: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG change PI policy'
&
$
%
more radical approach
• abandon distinction between PA and PI completely
• RIPE members (LIRs) go to RIPE NCC and ask for “numbers”
• numbers are then used to “number things”
• difference between “ISP like” users and “end users” could be
taken into account by checkbox
– ( ) I want to assign /56s to end users ⇒ /32 allocated
– otherwise default is /48
– larger than /48 or /32 if documented need
• “sponsoring LIR” model or “become a member”
• AGM and NCC board to re-balance the costs to make size of
IPv6 allocation not relevant for “become LIR or not?” decision
29
![Page 30: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG change PI policy'
&
$
%
what do YOU think?
• feedback from the room, please
• next steps: take feedback, form policy text, propose to the list
30
![Page 31: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG open policy proposals'
&
$
%
M. Discussion of open policy proposals
• 2011-02 – Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
– Erik Bais
31
![Page 32: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG feedback solicited'
&
$
%
N. On Transfer Guidelines
• Dave Wilson
• bringing non-obvious problems with transfers into the open
• solicit feedback, funnel into RIPE BCP document
32
![Page 33: RIPE Address Policy Working Group](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022071602/613d6243736caf36b75cb02c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
RIPE 62 APWG thanks'
&
$
%
Thanks!
• thanks for your input
• thanks for your help in forming policies in the RIPE region
• . . . enjoy your lunch!
• . . . and we hope to see you back tomorrow, 09:00 (!!)
33