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

Dear APWG,

Here is an overview of the requests for temporary IPv4 assignments we 
have received over the past five years.
Since 1 January 2017, we received 275 requests in total. 56 of these 
were approved (43 for conferences/events and 13 for 
research/tests/experiments).

Looking at this closer:

- Before IPv4 “run-out”: we received 171 requests over a period of 35 
months, from 1 January 2017 to 24 November 2019.
38 of these requests were approved (33 for conferences/events and 5 for 
research/tests/experiments).
There was an average of 4.9 requests per month and an approval rate of 
22.2%.

- After IPv4 "run-out": we received a total of 104 requests over a 
period of 26 months, from 25 November 2019 until today, 4 February 2022.
18 of these requests were approved (10 for conferences/events and 8 for 
research/tests/experiments).
There was an average of 4 requests per month and an approval rate of 17.3%.

One request is still ongoing. Of the 85 requests that were rejected, 6 
were for conferences and 79 were for research/tests/experiments.

Reasons for rejection of the 6 requests for conferences and events:
- 1 was cancelled by the requester for administrative reasons
- 1 duplicate request
- 2 cancelled conferences/events
- 2 undocumented conferences/events

Reasons for rejections of the 79 requests for research/tests/experiments:
- 6 were for network migrations to IPv6 or renumbering due to failover, 
DDoS attack, etc
- 8 were not adequately documented
- 18 were for testing on the requestor’s own network (CGNAT, BGP, 
Anycast, NAT,...)
- 47 were due to the requestor seeking to extend their network (new 
customers, services, data centers, etc)


The total number of requests hasn’t really changed after IPv4 "run-out". 
We can see that COVID-19 impacted the number of requests for 
conferences/events. These are generally well documented and usually 
approved. In these cases, the 50% utilisation requirement in the policy 
helps define the assignment’s size. On the other hand, this requirement, 
as well as the maximum time limit of one year, can interfere with the 
approval of requests for research/tests/experiments that are properly 
documented and within the policy’s scope.
The number of rejected requests for research/tests/experiments has 
increased recently, as the majority were to perform testing or migration 
in the requester's network or to temporarily extend it. We see that 
initial applications and objections after rejection often refer to the 
current text of the policy, which leaves room for different 
interpretations about the scope of testing.

Kind regards,
Angela

-- 
Angela Dall'Ara
RIPE NCC Policy Officer



On 28/01/2022 12:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> That look to me as a good approach.
>
> That will be a good way to handle "really needed" IPv4 experiments, which I don't think are relevant anymore, but I'm happy to support if there are good and needed cases considering the good of the overall community.
>
> The negative part is the overhead of the panel selection, etc.
>
> In any case, I'm still for not having temporary delegations of IPv4 for conference, I don't think there is a excuse for that today.
>
> May be the NCC can tell us, in the last 10 years or so, how many IPv4 temporary assignments have been provided for both, conferences, experiments, and "other" cases (if there have been)?
>   
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>   
>   
>
> El 28/1/22 12:21, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de dfk at ripe.net> escribió:
>
>
>
>      I have the strong suspicion that this is another example of trying to
>      codify special/corner cases. Doing this takes disproportionate amounts
>      of energy and causes an ever increasing amount of undesired side
>      effects.
>
>      <shields up>
>
>      How about giving the RIPE NCC discretion to make sensible decisions
>      about the corner case ‘scientific experiment’ after getting advice
>      from a panel of scientists?
>      Or delegating the decisions to such a panel?
>
>      This way we could avoid spending energy on codification and avoid the
>      undesired side effects. We would just need to find a couple of credible
>      people to review the requests. I expect this to be less work than
>      codification and re-codification …
>
>      Daniel
>
>      --
>
>      To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>