[address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 11:36:53AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 08:40:10AM +0100, Eliot Lear via address-policy-wg wrote:
> >> I like the idea of the NCC (specifically RIPE Labs) just allocating to themselves a small block of v4 and another of v6 for experiments, and then delegating portions or the whole of the block for bounded experiments, keeping the paperwork and process to a minimum.  Also, RIPE could perhaps extort a good talk out of the researchers once the results are published ;-)
> > 
> > "The policy is too complicated, just circumvent it" is not the way we
> > try to handle policy in RIPE land.  If it is so, we try to fix the policy
> > (or the process).
> 
> 
> First, it???s not clear to me that this is a stretch from existing RIPE 
> policies, but perhaps you could explain the gap.

"The NCC allocating to itself" is very clearly governed by RIPE policies
today, and is a special case with extra checks and measures.

So, if "the NCC gives address to experiments, according to the temporary
address policy" is too complicated, suggesting "the NCC allocates to itself,
and then can use that freely without all that paperwork" is something I'd
interpret as "circumventing the policy".

> But otherwise, I agree I could have stated that better.  I was
> aiming at a policy that empowers the NCC to provide such temporary
> or research allocations as they deem appropriate so long as they
> don???t impact address space or routing table growth or otherwise
> risk security of others.

That is what we have, the current "Temporary Internet Number Assignment
Policy", ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-526 - it does that, but as
Randy noticed, it has clauses in there that are hard to fulfill for
routing experiments ("50% usage" in 3.3).

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
volunteer group of individuals that have had hands-on experience with
BGP routing for <n> years" (because, I think, that's really the crucial
part here, to differenciate from other setups that can do the 50% just
fine, or use RFC1918 space instead).

I'd volunteer, I'm good at not-liking things :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20220203/400ce72c/attachment.sig>