[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 18:09, Brian Storey <Brian.Storey at gamma.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Tore,
>
> Does this not contradict other purposes / objectives of the registry, including the principles of registering public networks or am I missing something?

+1
my thoughts exactly

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG


>
> Many thanks,
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Tore Anderson
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 12:22 PM
> To: Andrii Syrovatko <andrey_syrovatko at trifle.net>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; adallara at ripe.net
> Cc: APEX NCC ORG <registry at apex.dp.ua>; Trifle NOC <noc at trifle.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)
>
> * APEX NCC ORG
>
> > Hello, Team!
> > I read the offer provided:
> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> > ripe.net%2Fparticipate%2Fpolicies%2Fproposals%2F2023-04&data=05%7C01%7
> > Cbrian.storey%40gamma.co.uk%7C3a23e9f95d904f83274a08dbad391d6b%7C743a5
> > d9f11234f3f8fcf5766b8ad8bf9%7C0%7C0%7C638294233043320645%7CUnknown%7CT
> > WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
> > 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9dEJGnNWdlapbyyzjM5qgJvn%2BB6G%2BGp6jjmu
> > %2FcDzZPY%3D&reserved=0
> > three times.
> > However, I still don't understand the real reason for introducing the
> > AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status The text of the proposal contains only
> > general provisions.
> > Can you provide a more detailed description and examples?
>
> Hi Andrii!
>
> There are several possible examples, but let me give you just one:
>
> Let's say you're a small cloud VPS provider in the business of leasing out virtual machines to small businesses and private individuals. Your cloud management software dynamically assigns IPv4 addresses out of
> 192.0.2.0/24 to customers, so you have for example:
>
> 192.0.2.1/32 = assigned to Alice's first VM - used for a web server
> 192.0.2.2/32 = assigned to Bob - used for a Minecraft server
> 192.0.2.3/32 = assigned to Bob's hair salon business = web server
> 192.0.2.4/32 = assigned to Alice's second VM - mail server
>
> …and so on.
>
> Current policy requires you to register four individual INETNUM assignments of size /32 for the above four virtual machines.
>
> However, due to the GDPR requirements, you usually cannot put Alice's and Bob's names or contact info into the RIPE database, so instead you typically substitute your own (this is allowed by policy).
>
> That means you have now four individual INETNUMs with identical contact information (your own). You need to add or remove these /32 INETNUMs as customer VMs come and go. You can automate this, but it is a pointless exercise in any case.
>
> To avoid this, we propose allowing you to create a single INETNUM that covers the entire 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 range, just like you can already do with any IPv6 assignments made to the same VMs. This aggregated object will cover all customer VMs in your cloud infrastructure, present and future, and makes it so that you don't have to send a RIPE database update every time a customer VM is provisioned or discontinued.
>
> Tore
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faddress-policy-wg&data=05%7C01%7Cbrian.storey%40gamma.co.uk%7C3a23e9f95d904f83274a08dbad391d6b%7C743a5d9f11234f3f8fcf5766b8ad8bf9%7C0%7C0%7C638294233043320645%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jtDVwO2J07Os87Tt9U%2BLQ0eg2T%2FDFsDrknEX9fBy41k%3D&reserved=0
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/