RIPE 83 Address Policy Working Group Minutes

Tuesday, 23 November 2021, 10:30 -11:30 (UTC+1)
Chairs: Erik Bais, James Kennedy, Leo Vegoda
Scribe: Matt Parker
Status: Final

A. Administrative Matters

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/637

Erik opened the session by welcoming the attendees and introducing himself and his co-chairs, Leo and James. He reminded everybody that the session was being recorded and that there were pre-recorded video presentations available on the RIPE 83 website.  Erik summarised the agenda for the session, asked for and received approval for the minutes from RIPE 82 and thanked the stenographers for the work that they do. 

B. ASO AC Report Summary and Questions

James Kennedy, AWS
Hervé Clement, Orange SA/ASO AC/ETNO
Nurani Nimpuno, LINX

Pre-recorded video:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/ASO_AC_Report_Summary_and_Questions.mp4

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/638

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/35-2021-11-RIPE-83-ASO-AC-Update.pdf

Hervé presented the report from the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC). He explained who the ASO AC are, what they do, how they are organised and who the current members of the council are. James spoke about transparency within the ASO and mentioned that their meetings are open to observers, they have an open mailing list archive and that their monthly teleconferences are recorded and can be found on the ASO section of the ICANN website. He explained the involvement that the ASO AC has in appointments to the ICANN board and reminded everyone that nominations for the vacant ‘Seat 10’ need to be in before 1 December 2021. 

There were no questions. 

C. NRO NC/ASO AC Candidate Introductions 

Ulka Athale, Senior Communications Officer, RIPE NCC

Pre-recorded video:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/NRO_NC_Candidates_Nov_2021.mp4

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/639

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/3-NRO-NC-Nominations.pdf

Ulka Athale, RIPE NCC, presented a recap of Number Resource Organisation Number Council (NRO NC) election process, explained how attendees could participate and reminded everybody that the results of the election would be announced in the Closing Plenary. There were four candidates for the vacant position and their introduction videos are available on the RIPE 83 website:

https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/NRO_NC_Candidates_Nov_2021.mp4

Peter Koch, DENIC eG, asked whether the candidates could elaborate on what absent global policies they would envision the ASO/NRO becoming involved with? Töma said that global policy development isn’t perhaps as active as within the individual regions and that there might be some potential for building bridges there, he suggested that ASO could look at how different regions handle shared threats such network abuse and routing issues.

There were no further questions. 

D. Q&A on Current Policy Topics

Angela Dall'Ara, Policy Officer, RIPE NCC

Pre-recorded video:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Angela_Dall'Ara-RIPE_83_-_Current-Policy-Topics.mp4

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/640

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2-RIPE-83-Current-Policy-Topics.pdf

Angela presented a brief summary of policy development within the RIPE service region and within the other RIR regions. She spoke about the new draft of the PDP document (currently ripe-710) and invited the community to provide feedback and suggestions on the ripe-list mailing list. Angela explained that there were no active policy proposals being discussed in the RIPE region but that there were topics coming up during RIPE 83 which might generate new proposals. These included the stockpiling of IPv6 allocations (without announcing them in BGP), the recommendations of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force and the review of the IPv6 policy goals. Angela also spoke about the policies that have been discussed, accepted and implemented in other service regions since RIPE 82.

Erik asked about the status of the inter-RIR Transfer Policy in the AFRINIC region. Angela said that there were multiple proposals but the one that went into ‘last call’ will only allow outgoing transfers for legacy address space or space that has come from out of region. It is not fully reciprocal with the policy in the RIPE region, but it is compatible, and we would be able to accept these transfers. Angela noted that it has not yet been ratified and we will have to wait and see where it will go from there. Jordi Palet Martínez, Moremar - The IPv6 Company, spoke about inter-RIR transfer policy proposals in the AFRINIC region and said that even if a policy is ratified it would take at least nine months to implement.

Erik asked for an update on the review of the current PDP Policy, a community policy which is being discussed on the ripe-list. Angela said that the new draft was published at the end of October and that feedback has been requested from the community about whether the problem statement is clear and whether any changes are needed.

Chuene Semono, University of Limpopo, asked why it would take nine months to implement a policy once it has been approved. Angela said that there is no fixed implementation time, it depends on the specific policy proposal in question. Erik said that this question relates to an earlier answer from Jordi about the transfer policy in AFRINIC. Jordi said that an inter-RIR transfer policy takes many months of coordination with the other RIRs and that the implementation requires a lot of resources from all the RIRs involved.

There were no further questions.

D.1. AFRINIC Case Update 

Hans Petter Holen, Managing Director, RIPE NCC

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/641

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/44-AFRINIC-Case-Update.pdf

Hans Petter presented an update on the AFRINIC case. He gave a brief introduction to the situation and explained the developments through 2021. He also spoke about the Joint RIR Stability Fund established by the Number Resource Organisation (NRO) and confirmed that, so far, the AFRINIC board has not made any request to access the fund.

There were no questions. 

E. Q&A on Feedback from the RIPE NCC Registry Services

Marco Schmidt, Registry Services Assistant Manager, RIPE NCC

Pre-recorded video:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/MarcoS_RIPE_83_Feedback_RS.mp4

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/642

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/11-Final-RIPE83-Feeback-from-RS.pdf

Marco provided analysis showing that the market value for a /24 is approximately double the cost of setting up an LIR account and keeping it open for three years, which makes it financially attractive to open multiple LIR accounts. RS anticipate that this will result in significantly longer waiting times for newcomers and Marco questioned whether this conflicts with the original intent of the policy proposal that introduced the IPv4 waiting list. Marco also spoke about the challenges that members face understanding the difference between allocations and assignments, specifically the policy requirement that an LIR must register assignments in the RIPE Database. He asked the community whether the definition of ‘allocations’ and ‘assignments’ needs to be updated. Finally, Marco discussed the stockpiling of IPv6 allocations, which has already been discussed on the mailing list. He explained that some members have legitimately received multiple IPv6 allocations, either via multiple LIR accounts or via the transfer policy. Marco highlighted some potential concerns with this and asked whether it conflicts with the IPv6 goals of conservation, registration and aggregation. Marco concluded by asking the community for feedback on IPv6 policy, IPv6 goals and IPv6 transfer restrictions. 

Erik asked the working group whether they see a problem with the topic of the IPv4 waiting list and if so, how do they want to fix it, for example by limiting the waiting list for only new LIRs per organisation? Marco responded that the Working Group could look at the policy text and that the membership could look at the charging scheme - these are the two avenues through which this could be addressed.  

Peter Hessler, DENIC eG, suggested a policy proposal could be crafted for new IPv4 allocations which would prevent the transfer of those resources, should the LIR account be closed the resources would be returned to the RIPE NCC for redistribution. This would not apply to historical IPv4 allocations, nor would it apply to IPv6 allocations or AS number assignments. Erik said that problem would remain with the merger and acquisition of companies and that limiting the waiting list to only new organisations (who are not already LIRs) might be more effective. 

Gert Doering, SpaceNet AG, said that it is cheap and easy to open a new company in many jurisdictions which, if organisations exploit this loophole, could lead to a reduction in the quality of the data in the Registry.  

Hans Petter pointed the working group to the General Meeting (GM) on Wednesday where the board would present some potential changes to the charging scheme. These changes may help to address the gap between setting up a new LIR (including annual fees) and the market price of IPv4 prefixes. Hans Petter added that he would like to see the removal of the artificial creation of multiple LIR accounts just to get more address space. 

Sander Steffan, 6connect, seconded what Gert said, if we don’t limit the Merger & Acquisition path it will be too easy to bypass the policy requirements. Having long (or forever) limits on transferring could work but it has been discussed within the community in the past and closing one door often opens another, so it is very difficult to solve. At some point it might be ok to say, “let’s just leave it and allow IPv4 to rot”. 

Wolfgang Zenker, punkt.de GmbH, suggested that the RIPE NCC could stop distributing IPv4 space for free and instead putting /24s up for auction. Only members would be allowed to bid, and every participant can make one, non-public bid, highest wins. 

Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, asked whether the people grabbing 5+ LIRs for IPv4 are just doing the same for IPv6. Perhaps they are not intentionally stockpiling IPv6? 

Maximilian Wilhelm, representing himself, asked if the RIPE NCC knows whether the stockpiled IPv6 allocations are in use in any way? Marco said that the majority are not currently announced and said that some LIRs offer very large sub-allocations of IPv6 to their customers for less than it would cost to become an LIR and request the address space from the RIPE NCC directly. 

Leo asked whether it is possible that the space is being used for networks which are not connected to the Internet? Marco said that this seems unlikely but that it is difficult to confirm. 

Erik said that the graphs for the IPv4 waiting list and for IPv6 stockpiling were very similar and were perhaps the same group of people. If correct, then he suggested that a discussion about registering multiple LIRs may be necessary. 

Jordi said that he is not worried about IPv4 anymore, it is over, but he recognised that the same problem could occur with IPv6 if not carefully managed. He asked whether there is more that can be done to restrict multiple LIRs, perhaps based on their justification for the multiple LIR account. Marco said that this would require a change of policy as the current policy is clear and explicit. 

Rinse Kloek, Kloek Internetdiensten, asked if it could help to make the default IPv6 allocation size that an ISP receives dependant on the amount of IPv4 space that it has received. They could help to ensure that LIRs have one big allocation instead of multiple /29s. Marco said that it might be challenging as ISPs who currently hold small amounts of IPv4 space may have a greater need to invest in IPv6.

Remco van Mook, The Trashcan outside, asked what percentage of IPv6 space has currently been allocated and are we at risk of running out. Marco said that only a small fraction has been allocated and there is no risk of running out. However, there are also aggregation and registration goals which remain a concern. 

There were no further questions. 

F. RIPE Database Requirements TF

James Kennedy, AWS

Pre-recorded video:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/DBTF-APWG-RIPE83.mp4

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/643

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/40-RIPE83-DBTF-APWG-2slide.pdf

James presented an update from the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force. Based on input from the community and the RIPE NCC they have defined ’Data Management Principles’ and ‘Purposes’ for the RIPE Database, as well as making other recommendations which will need be further discussed in the relevant RIPE Working Groups. For the Address Policy WG, the task force had one recommendation; to remove policies that mandate all IPv4 assignments be registered in the RIPE Database.  They clarified that the functionality would remain in the RIPE Database for those who want to use it - but it should no longer be mandatory for all allocation holders. The final version of the report has been published on the RIPE website: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-767

Erik said that Assisted Registry Checks (ARCs) ask about the registration of assignments which causes some issues because policy and reality are not in line. In the role of WG Co-chair he believes that this policy needs an update. 

Tom Hill, BT, asked whether justifying usage is required when transferring in from another RIR and whether that process would be made more complex if this recommendation was adopted by the WG. Erik said that although a usage plan is required for inter-RIR transfers into the RIPE region it is not expected, nor possible to document that plan in the RIPE Database.

G. Break

H. Review of RIPE IPv6 Policy Goals

Leo Vegoda, And Polus LLC

The video is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/644

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/37-RIPE-83-APWG-IPv6-Policy-Goals-draft-2.pdf

Leo presented a review of RIPE IPv6 policy goals, which were originally identified in ripe-246 published in 2002. Since these goals were identified the landscape has changed considerably, IPv4 has run out and policies have been introduced which facilitate the transfer of address space. It seems appropriate to consider whether the goals set out 20 years ago are still applicable. For example, is aggregation still considered to be the most important policy goal or should other goals have more or perhaps the same importance. 

Gert said that he believed that the IPv6 policy had been a tremendous success because it’s very easy for people who want to run an IPv6 network to get the space that they need. However, he agreed that looking again after 20 years is good and volunteered to help. Sander also volunteered to help with this in the chat. 

Jordi said that he thought aggregation was still the most important goal and that he wouldn’t change that, but that there may be other issues to consider. He also volunteered to help. 

Erik thanked the scribe, chat monitor, co-chairs and all the people who participated in the meeting. He expressed the hope that he would see everyone in Berlin for the next session, and if not online.