[address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to · Fri May 6 14:52:32 CEST 2011

Hi All,

I support this proposal.

To have 2 ISPs is not a cheap solution. What in case if you have 2-ISPs and you are not satisfied with offered services with one of them and decide to have only 1-ISP. You cannot use IPv6 PI space. What in case if you want to change another ISP ? You have to renumber a lot of ip addresses and update firewalls and more. I think that keeping multihoming requirement for IPv6 PI space prevent to deploy of IPv6 especially for small end users (customers).

Mikael Abrahamsson,

Why do you think: "50 EUR PI with no technical requirements for multihoming or other is a recipe for longterm disaster in my book." ? 50 Eur works today for IPv4 PI space as well.

Thank you

Best regards
_____________________________________
Pavol Kovac

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:00 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1313 - 14 msgs

Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
        address-policy-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. On the agenda for tomorrow: 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) (Sander Steffann)
   2. Re: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of
       multihomed requirement for IPv6) (Mikael Abrahamsson)
   3. Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) (Sander Steffann)
   4. RE: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6) (poty at iiat.ru)
   5. Re: Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification
       Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) (Mikael Abrahamsson)
   6. Re: 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed
       requirement for IPv6) (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vegar_L=F8v=E5s?=)
   7. Re: Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification
       Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) (Malcolm Hutty)
   8. pointer to ietf sidr wg (Randy Bush)
   9. Re: Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial
       Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) (boggits)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 16:44:41 +0200
To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] On the agenda for tomorrow: 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)

Hello WG,

We will have a discussion about 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in =
the RIPE NCC Service Region) on the agenda for tomorrow's address policy =
session at RIPE 62. We also will have a short presentation there about =
the issues that have been discussed on this mailing list over the last =
couple of days. The session is from 9:00 to 10:30 and remote =
participation is possible at http://ripe62.ripe.net/live/main.

Thank you,
Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:30:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
cc: policy-announce at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of
 multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:

> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 13 May 2011.

As has been stated by me before, 50 EUR PI with no technical requirements
for multihoming or other is a recipe for longterm disaster in my book.

I strongly oppose.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 08:43:56 +0200
To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)

Hello WG,

I asked the RIPE NCC to get legal counsel on the possibilities of a =
court ordering the RIPE NCC to revoke or confiscate RPKI certificates. =
Here is the full answer we received:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The RIPE NCC is an association under Dutch law and therefore subject to =
the Dutch legislation. RIPE NCC has consulted several external lawyers, =
and has obtained an analysis of the legal situation based on current, =
existing Dutch legislation. This analysis takes into account Dutch =
Criminal, Civil and Administrative law.

Certificates are directly linked to the registration of the Internet =
number resources.

There is no specific Dutch legislation that can be used to order the =
deregistration of Internet number resources or change the registration =
details of Internet number resources. Nor is there any legislation that =
applies to the revocation of certificates over Internet number =
resources.

In the absence of such legislation, a court cannot order the revocation =
of certificates.

It is the RIPE NCC=92s view, based on this analysis, that the RIPE NCC =
cannot be ordered to revoke resource certificates.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Of course laws can change, but the advice above may address some of the =
concerns raised about the RPKI infrastructure.

Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair

--__--__--

Message: 4
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 10:59:44 +0400
From: <poty at iiat.ru>
To: <swmike at swm.pp.se>,
        <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Cc: <policy-announce at ripe.net>

According to my messages to the WG earlier and taking into good
consideration of the point of view of Mikael Abrahamsson I oppose the
policy too.

Vladislav Potapov
IIAT, Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mikael
Abrahamsson
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:30 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Cc: policy-announce at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of
multihomed requirement for IPv6)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:

> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to=20
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 13 May 2011.

As has been stated by me before, 50 EUR PI with no technical
requirements=20
for multihoming or other is a recipe for longterm disaster in my book.

I strongly oppose.

--=20
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:01:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification
 Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW

On Fri, 6 May 2011, Sander Steffann wrote:

> In the absence of such legislation, a court cannot order the revocation
> of certificates.

In several countries, we've seen courts ordering ISPs to block
accessibility to certain sites involving not using DNS names (denmark and
thepiratebay.org for instance, or the domain names transferred to US
authorities just a few months ago) or block access IP-wise (Black Internet
in Sweden). I am sure there was no specific law handling this, but the
laws at least in these countries are flexible enough that other laws can
be used to order things around.

> Of course laws can change, but the advice above may address some of the
> concerns raised about the RPKI infrastructure.

It's good that it has been answered for dutch law, I wonder what
equivalent question would have been answered in Sweden and Denmark or the
US 5 years ago.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:13:49 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vegar_L=F8v=E5s?= <vegar at rentarack.no>
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed
 requirement for IPv6)

I agree with this proposal.

--=20
Best regards
Vegar L=F8v=E5s
Rent a Rack AS

On 15.04.2011 11:22, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A proposed change to the RIPE Document ripe-512,"IPv6 Address
> Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion.
>
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>      http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>  before 13 May 2011.
>
> Regards
>
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>

--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 08:28:44 +0100
From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification
 Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/05/2011 07:43, Sander Steffann wrote:
> There is no specific Dutch legislation that can be used to order the
> deregistration of Internet number resources or change the
> registration details of Internet number resources. Nor is there any
> legislation that applies to the revocation of certificates over
> Internet number resources.
>=20
> In the absence of such legislation, a court cannot order the
> revocation of certificates.
>=20
> It is the RIPE NCC=92s view, based on this analysis, that the RIPE NCC
> cannot be ordered to revoke resource certificates.

There are a couple of other possible current vectors, as well as the
question of future legislation.

1. Legal counsel referred to the lack of legislation that specifically
mentioned revocation of certificates. Most of the existing and draft
legislation I know of (not Dutch, but some EU) refers instead to
"preventing access to Internet [locations/sites/content]".

As a generalisation, courts will not normally order someone to do
something utterly outside their power, but may order someone to take
such steps as they are able to achieve an end if they are seen as being
able to make a significant contribution, even if that contribution won't
be wholly successful. For example, courts sometimes order newspapers and
broadcasters not to publish information, even though they know the
information may end up being published online.

Right now it is commonly said that RIPE NCC does not have control over
routing, so a court would be unlikely to order the RIPE NCC to prevent
access to an Internet location. If, as a result of this policy, RIPE NCC
is seen to have the capability to significantly reduce the reachability
of an Internet location, a court might be willing to order it to
"prevent access to the location" to the extent that it is able.
No explicit mention need be made of certificate revocation.

2. Within some jurisdictions LEAs argue that Internet intermediaries are
themselves criminally liable if they "facilitate" criminal activity by
refusing to prevent access to an Internet location where criminal
activity is ongoing, once they have been informed of the criminal
activity. Intermediaries are thus induced to block access without a
court order being necessary.

Within the EU, network operators have special protection against this
threat from the E-Commerce Directive as "mere conduits", but
unfortunately registries like the RIPE NCC probably do not fit the
definition of "mere conduit". In the UK, Nominet (the .uk ccTLD
registry) has been induced to suspend domain registrations using this
argument. RIPE NCC might in future be exposed to the same pressure.

3. Finally, new legislation not only /could/ be created, but most
certainly will. The Netherlands is subject to EU law. Whether such new
law would affect the RIPE NCC we cannot be certain, but I am certain
that the only thing restraining lobbyists is a lack of awareness of the
existence of RIPE NCC (and awareness is increasing), and a belief that
the RIPE NCC has no relevant technical capability, which this policy
would change.

- --=20
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
  Maya House, 134-138 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3DoywACgkQJiK3ugcyKhSlSACdGyEFtxJUai+xrWtGB/vwZjoJ
VnUAoLpgRXaghPiUTTDwF3SIoQxgCEa+
=3DeFIF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 10:23:36 +0200
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
To: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointer to ietf sidr wg

as requested by gert, here are pointers to the work of the sidr wg of
the ietf

  main page of wg == documents
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/
  charter of sidr wg
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/charter/
  mailing list
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/maillist.html

if i can be of help in navigation or interpretation, feel free to write
to me

randy, just another bozo on the routing security bus

--__--__--

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:06:44 +0200
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial
 Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
From: boggits <boggits at gmail.com>
Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>

On 6 May 2011 08:43, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> Of course laws can change, but the advice above may address some of the concerns raised about the RPKI infrastructure.
>

This is indeed true but misses the point that laws tend to exist
either when there is an actual 'thing' to make laws about or are
framed in such a way to allow the courts the latitude to include 'new
things' in the same piece of legislation. Since RPKI is not currently
a 'thing' but rather a 'new thing' I would be wary of relying on legal
opinion that says:

"There is no specific Dutch legislation that can be used to order the
deregistration of Internet number resources or change the registration
details of Internet number resources. Nor is there any legislation
that applies to the revocation of certificates over Internet number
resources."

What you are looking for is legislation (as pointed out by Malcom)
that can be used to restrict/control access to the internet which
appears to exist at least at a European level

J
--

James Blessing
07989 039 476

End of address-policy-wg Digest