[address-policy-wg] Checking interest in the community for changing IPv4 assignments policy

Hi Jeroen

What is the real reason for this push to dump assignments? I just
don't buy these arguments.

On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 21:41, Jeroen Lauwers <jlauwers at a2b-internet.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
> Now RIPE 86 is around the corner Tore and I would like to check if there is any interest in changing the way of making assignments in the IPv4 policy. At this moment we got 3 major points coming repetitively back from the community.
>
> 1. The current policy asks for a lot of repetitive work in making these assignments and it would be nice if, with a policy change, a lot of this repetitive work could be taken away.

I know it is an odd thing to consider in this industry, but this is
what computers are good at doing. It is 2023. Everyone is talking
about how AI is going to take control of humanity soon. But the
internet industry cannot automate the syncing of your internal IPAM
with the RIPE Database? I don't think we need to worry about AI yet.

>
> 2. There is a lot of under and over-assigning in the RIPE DB where a policy change would be beneficial to take some of the reasons away for this.

We don't need to take away reasons, we just need to automate and do it properly.

>
> 3. Policy 6.3 “Network Infrastructure and End User Networks” can be interpreted differently for what the right use case is.

I don't see anything in 6.2 that is open to interpretation or relevant
to the case for dumping assignments.

>
> Including the feedback from the previous policy proposal, we are thinking about introducing AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status just as in the IPv6 policy. In this way, we can aggregate multiple assignments into one AGGREGATED-BY-LIR assignment which we think would result in improving the above-mentioned points.

I think it is a bad idea to hide the users of blocks of IP addresses
from the public in a public registry database. With a modern approach
to creating the data in the database, there is no need for
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for either IPv4 or IPv6. The RIPE Database is not
just for the benefit of resource holders, it is a public registry. I
don't care if we have 10m assignments, 20m assignments as IPv6 gathers
momentum. With automated data generation it is not a problem to create
the correct data and keep it up to date. With a good query interface
anyone interested in information about one IP address can easily and
quickly find it. The other 20m entries are not a problem.

There is also the issue of responsibility and liability. All resource
holders (members) have signed an SSA. In that agreement they accept
legal responsibility and liability for any and all usage of their
allocated address space. With an updated, automated data generation
process the RIPE Database will publicly show the correct details for
who this responsibility and liability has been delegated to. Anyone
pursuing a civil action or any LEA pursuing a criminal action can
apply that action to the most specific user of the address space in
question. If you hide the details of the end users, they only have the
resource holders details. But as the resource holder has legally
accepted full responsibility and liability for any and all usage of
this address space, I see no reason why an LEA can't take action
against the resource holder for any criminal activity involving their
allocated address space. Why would they bother to get court orders in
multiple languages and legal jurisdictions to find the end user
details when they know who has accepted responsibility and
liability...the resource holder. If you hide all your end user
details, don't be surprised if you are held accountable.

I have also heard the argument that many resource holders don't want
to publish details of their customers for fear of another resource
holder trying to offer them a better deal. In the IPv4 world there is
so little address space available there is not much chance of anyone
taking your customers away. Your bigger customers may not want to
renumber anyway. But if this is a genuine concern to lots of resource
holders, why not add a clause to the SSA forbidding members from
direct marketing other member's customers?

I see no benefits and lots of downsides to dumping assignments.

cheers
denis
 co-chair DB-WG


>
> We would like to check what the community thinks about this plan and if there is enough positive feedback we would like to make a concept proposal from it and present this at RIPE86.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/