NRO/RIR Reports
18 October 2019
9 a.m.
SPEAKER: Good morning everyone to the RIPE meeting red eye session. I probably should just start by mentioning there is a fire alarm, so I think everything is fine now but there is ‑‑ they are investigating and there is a small chance we might have to sort of leave. But, I think we will just continue until they come back. So we have got pretty full agenda. They don't seem to think it's a problem so they will talk to us. And I suppose for speakers, just note we will be using this thing so if you have fought a ten minute presentation your light will come on with three minutes to go, if you have got a 15‑minute presentation, it will come on with four minutes to go.
And just a reminder, if you have registered to vote and the election, you have got until 10:30 to cast your vote so please do that.
So, I think first up, we have got Laura from LACNIC.
LAURA KAPLAN: Hello, good morning, everyone. I am the development and cooperation manager for LACNIC, I know this is not the most popular slot in, so I prepare very short presentation and I am going to keep it very simple.
So, I want to share two topics. One of them is about the initiatives we have to keep security stability and open Internet and also the other, promoting and enrichment and inclusive and bottom up Internet model. In the first half I want to share some of the activities we are doing, the first one is we just establish RIS BGP collector in Montevideo and this is an initiative that also link with another I am examining to tell you about as a validator we are working with NX Mexico. We keep working, it is a project that we use to establish new root servers through the region. We are LACNIC work as the trust partner to link the countries that offer to host the root and the other organisations, so now we are working with surname, Guatemala.
This is the I was talking about earlier, called FORT, routing security project. Through this project we get the funding from the Open Technology Fund that is a cooperation founded, and we are working on a validator we know there are also other validators but this will have a specifics because we are going to also build a tool to document incidents and a tool for reporting. So, we are finished ‑‑ we are in the last stage, I think some of you were not working but collaborating with our team so maybe you know a little bit more but we are going to do a big launch it when it's finished.
Well, our online training, we have been training people from ‑‑ through our campus since 2015. This year, we had a lot of people getting the certificate, around 2000 people get certificates in IPv6, BGP and also introduction to network management and we have another course, security, that is new. So, we keep growing in our online capacity building and our online training. We also have webinars, that is a lighter training, and I want to share that we have available free courses this year, there are new network management and security in network management and introduction to IPv6 in English because all our content is in Spanish now.
Well, this is another project, this is FRIDA, and that is funded support initiatives that identify social problem and try to solve it with technology. Through the last years we have been working in community networks and gender divide and next year we are going to launch a slightly different themes because we want to focus and read a little bit FRIDA to get closer to our technical community so you are going to be seeing more technical things to build a proposal.
Well, Ayitic goes global and cooperation project is founded by IDRC. This is a gender project, we are building capacity in Haiti, it was ‑‑ it was a really challenging project because it was a little bit out of our scope. We also work in the Internet, like, environment to try to strength the IXPs and also prepare technical people from Haiti to reinforce the Internet network. We are now also getting to the end of this project. We could train 314 women and some of them already get, so it's success for us.
In the other hand, about the things that maybe are more natural for the audience, well, the policy proposals, the policy process, this year we had 9 proposals that were discussed. I was here yesterday when Petrit presented the numbers, so maybe this doesn't sound like ‑‑ it's not a great indicator because we have a lot of proposals being discussed, but I think that this is the one that everyone wants to, like, know and see, that this LACNIC is ready for Inter‑RIR IPv4 resource transfers. This is one of the proposals that reached consensus this year and we are going to be ready to start in July 2020.
Well, about the proposals and indicators of the PDP, we also, we noticed that we don't have as much participation as we really think is necessary, so, we are working in training, like, prepare the people from our community better and until the forum. We have been doing tutorials in which we present the proposals that are going to be discussed in the forum, the day before, on Monday, and we do a workshop feel like more loose and understand the proposals and be better prepared for the forum. And it really has been a very good experience, a lot of people, like, after that, get the courage to go to the microphone and participate so we are going to keep doing it and we are very happy with the results.
Well, we have also our events. This year, we already have both the first one was in punt at that can in a, we have more or less reached 600 participants and last week we were in Panama for the LACNIC‑lack NOG with 500 participants and we do little events called LACNIC on the move that are like LACNIC on the road, similar to that, we go to specific communities and, well, we train and we do talks in shorter and more small audience.
Well, and this is one of our ‑‑ also our most different thing that we are doing this year. The IT women project. We did this last year research to understand to understand what are the barriers or the things that are preventing women to participate in our events. So we launched free initiatives, the first one is childcare during the event is similar you guys have here. We also, this year, we build the Code of Conduct in slightly different way, it was the job of the staff for starting and now we have a group from our community to keep working and building that code.
And also, we changed a little bit of our IT sessions; we are trying to mix and do something more like in a workshop way, as you see in the photo we had also a lot of men participating so we were very happy. We did a coaching and networking session sponsored by Google and it was really great. We get a lot of participations and I think that kind of things are what we need to keep improving in our diversity and events.
Last one, our upcoming events. We are going to be in Colombia on May next year and in October we are going to be in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, so every one of you that want to assist to a LACNIC event you can schedule now. That's all. Thank you all, and if you have any questions, I think we have 12 seconds.
(Applause)
RANDY BUSH: IIJ and Arrcus. Could you say more about your policy discussion training, because I think that would help here to increase participation in policy.
LAURA KAPLAN: Yes, of course. We have two different tutorials, the first one is one in which we select two or three proposals that are going to be discussed in the forum, and we ‑‑ first, we explain what the fora is and what is going ‑‑ what the audience should expect. And we divide the audience in groups. We have the help of our chairs and our policy officer, and well, in each group we explain the proposal, like what is this about, what are the ‑‑ yes, what does proposal means and what is going to happen if that proposal gets consensus and some of the specifics and we let the people in that group start talking about what they think about that, if it's good, it's not, if it's necessary to make changes and we let them discuss that.
And the other ‑‑ the other tutorial is about our manual, because we notice that sometimes there are a lot of policy proposals that are not very necessary, and sometimes you need to know a little bit more about what is in the manual to know what you can do to get that better. So, we also, for that, we select some parts and we split the groups and, well, we let them, like, think, well, do you know ‑‑ do you think this, I don't know, IPv6 session needs some change or add something? And it's more like a workshop. And it has been a good experience because maybe two or three different people get to the microphone during the fora.
RANDY BUSH: Thank you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: NTT Germany. Why you had decided to publish the introduction to IPv6 in English and also not also in Spain?
LAURA KAPLAN: We did, we did have it in Spanish. It was ‑‑ in fact, it was our first course in the campus and then we have, I think, three or four countries in our territory that speaks English and they wanted to get access to the campus so that's why we build IPv6 introduction in English but we also have it in Spanish.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: And do you plan to translate the other courses then in English?
LAURA KAPLAN: Yes, we are slowly getting there. Then, this year we are going to translate another course that is going to be new for 2020, that is Internet governance, and that one is going to be in Spanish and in English. And the main region speaks Spanish, we also have Portuguese, but Brazil has special ‑‑ Brazil do a lot of these courses so it's not necessary to translate, and we are ‑‑ we are keep opening our courses in English, yes, slowly.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you.
LAURA KAPLAN: Thank you.
(Applause)
SPEAKER: Next we have got Ernest from AFRINIC.
ERNEST BYARUHANGA: Good morning everyone. My presentation will be also a bit short. I notice we have ten minutes to share quite much, so...
So, our talk ‑‑ I will talk about three topics. One is an update on our policy development, what has been happening in that area; then a little bit about our capacity building efforts in trying to popularise the IPv6 programme; and lastly, the IPv6 run‑out status in the region.
So, straight on to our current policy proposals that are under discussion, the first one is the recently introduced policy proposal regarding Inter‑RIR transfers, we actually have three proposals touching into this, so this proposal catered IPv4 Inter‑RIR ‑‑ oh, sorry, the first one is titled AFRINIC number resources transfer policy, so it is in its second iteration as of September 2019, and this one provides for transfer of resources between AFRINIC and the other regions and between the other regions and AFRINIC. The resource types that are allowed by this proposal are both IPv4 and AS number resources. However, only legacy IPv4 and AS number resources are allowed to leave AFRINIC to the other regions and AFRINIC at the same time, we accept all other resource types, including legacy, from the other regions. It is going to be discussed first at our upcoming meeting in Angola and we hope that will be an interesting one.
The second proposal also touching Inter‑RIR transfers, is titled IPv4 Inter‑RIR legacy resources transfers. So the difference between this and previous one is that, it's actually pretty much the same, this only allows for IPv4 resource transfers so it is pretty much identify identical in the kind of transfers that can happen only that this particular one allows for transfer of IPv4 space and, yes, it only allows for legacy IPv4 space to leave AFRINIC to the other regions and allows any other type, all type of v4 to leave the other regions into AFRINIC.
So this proposal was last discussed, in fact it was first discussed at our previous meeting. It did not go through and it is up for discussion again at the next coming AFRINIC meeting in December.
The author of this proposal actually was here yesterday. If he thinks he needs to talk more about that, he is more than free to chip in.
Next is also another Inter‑RIR transfer proposal titled IPv4 Inter‑RIR transfers (comprehensive scope). This is by the same author of the previous one and this one allows for the transfer of still IPv4 address space only, all types of v4 space including legacy. So both can legacy and non legacy can leave to the other regions and both legacy and non legacy can leave the other regions into AFRINIC. I believe the author of this proposal did two proposals, so with the hope that one of them could be accepted by the community. Both of them were discussed at the last meeting and both of them did not go through and both of them are up for discussion again at the upcoming AFRINIC meeting.
Provisions for resource hijacking is the next proposal, I believe a similar proposal, I think, is ‑‑ was also discussed here. So, best current proposal aims to make it clear that if any resources are hijacked and it can be proved it is a violation of policy. And we have all these other procedures in there and how to do verifications. It was last discussed at the ‑‑ it was first discussed at the last AFRINIC meeting, it did not go through, and coming up for discussion again at the next meeting.
Next it's a revision to our policy development process which is actually a complete redo. The proposal splits up the lifecycle of a new policy proposal into distinct phases. Now, this proposal is in its fifth version. It has been presented three times at our last ‑‑ at all our previous meetings, four times actually, and in all of those times it did not go through and it is coming up again at the next meeting. The main reasons it did not go through is that the community heard it's too complicated because the authors loosely based it on the RIPE policy development process and most of the community thought it is complicated.
Next up, number resources review. So this is also another proposal which is in its eighth iteration, it has been presented I think five times at the last five meetings, and this one provides for AFRINIC to conduct regular audits of utilisation of number resources that are issued to members, so this is what the proposal calls reviews but they really are audits, audits to acertain that the purpose for which the member got these resources and still the same purpose for which they are using them and there is no other violations, for example, going on. And these audits can be randomly selected by AFRINIC or requested by the member themselves, be audited or where it gets interesting, which has been the issue of contention from the community, they can be triggered by a whistleblower and the whistleblower can remain anonymous and private. So most members ‑‑ most community members felt this issue of whistleblower triggering an audit on any member is not very fair and some do it maliciously. This is probably one of the reasons why this proposal has got through five meetings without getting accepted but it is still up for discussion again at the coming meeting.
Next one, multi‑homing not required for ASN, that requires the ‑‑ and the author proposed getting rid of that requirement, as simple as that. This is the second version of that proposal, it was not accepted at the last meeting and it's up for discussion again at the coming meeting.
So, these are the proposals under discussion and next are those that we have recently have been ‑‑ have been recently ratified by the board. One of them, IPv6 PI clarification. So, in the current IPv6 PI policy in our number resources manual, there is a sentence reads "the end site must show a plan to use and announce the IPv6 PI space within 12 months". So, the author thought that this sentence might not apply in some cases where the v6 PI space does not need to be cases, in cases such as ISP LAN peering space and those using to use v6 in private networks, that will not be announced. So this sentence was removed and this proposal is just about to be implemented.
Next up, among the recently ratified proposals, soft landing update. So in this proposal, number our current soft landing policy, which is a policy that determines how the last /8 will be distributed, that is a /12 reserved for unforeseen circumstances as written in the policy. So how that /12 would be distributed was meant to be determined by the AFRINIC board of directors, so this ratified proposal corrects that or removes that authority from the board and put it on the community. To determine how that will be used, probably through the PDP.
Next up, clarification on IPv6 sub‑assignments. I think a similar proposal existed pretty much in other regions by the same author. It was recently ratified. So this policy proposal applies explicit redirections on how IPv6 PI space should be used by the holder, so and restrictions are that the PI v6 space can only be used in the assignment holder's network or third party devices within that network or for interconnections. And the other condition is that the v6 PI cannot be used to offer services to third parties such as customers of an ISP. So this has also been ratified and just about to be implemented.
Sharing a bit of other news from our capacity building or training department. So, we launched an e‑learning portal sometime back in June 2019. That is the URL for that portal. It's mainly about IPv6 deployment and IPv6 information.
Then we have also been having many webinars on IPv6 deployment, so far eleven of them in 2019. This will be in English and French. With an average attendance of about 65 which we think was a very good response. We have also been talking a lot about our IPv6 certi:6 programme, 33 exams delivered on this programme which we think has been a very good progress from our training team. We also have an IPv6 deployment help desk which has received 99 requests and handled 52 conference calls to those that have requested.
There is also an IPv6, an effort for IPv6 deploy on this, as it's called, which is four‑day in person workshop for engineers to for operationalising IPv6 or knowledge required in many training efforts. We had had four of these so far in Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, and Malawi ‑‑ nine advertise their v6 prefixes and we are having the next one at the Nigeria network operators group which is happening at the end of this month in Lagos.
Quick update from our IPv4 inventory. So we recently announced that we are approaching Phase Two of, in our soft landing policy so Phase Two in our exhaustion phase is attained when we have an equivalent of a /11 left in our inventory. So in this Phase 2, we shall only be issuing a maximum of a /22. However ‑‑ whoever has been issuing /22 can still request multiple times no limit on that if they can show they have used it efficiently up to 90%. So in our current inventory we have about 1 .85 million IPv4 addresses left to hit Phase 2. And we will probably reach Phase 2 by the end of this year, if the consumption rates remain the same.
So, that is it, pretty, that I wanted to share with you and you are all welcome to our upcoming meeting to be held in Angola, that is the registration URL for those that want to register and attend. Thank you very much. I am happy to take any questions.
SPEAKER: Thank you. We don't actually have any time for questions. Move to Richard.
RICHARD BROWN: Good morning everyone. I am the business director at APNIC. I really welcome this opportunity to give this rather low energy audience, I don't know why, something to do with the function last night, but thank you very much for coming, those who did. I will give you what is happening at APNIC.
So, first of all, looking at membership, at the end of last year, we had just over 7,000 direct members in APNIC. By the end of July, we are looking at around 7,500 members, so, a good steady growth in IRR membership, just over 9,000. So we have around 16,500 accounts in the APNIC region.
If we look at allocations consistent distribution across the sub regions for IPv4, IPv6, continuing the trend fairly normal. We are seeing an increase in IPv4 transfers, particularly inter‑regional transfers, and we are also seeing a slight increase in ASN delegation. If you look at those charts, the colours represent the sub regions and that red area is where we forecast the numbers to end up at the end of 2019.
Resource holdings across the membership, we can see that 94% ‑‑ 96% of members have IPv4, 63% have IPv6 and around 77% have ASNs.
Policy implementation, so four policies implemented recently, so prop‑125 is in relation to the abuse mailbox. That was implemented in May after it was ‑‑ reached consensus at APNIC 46. Prop‑127, which changed the maximum delegation size from a /22 to a /23, was implemented immediately after APNIC 47 when consensus was achieved. At the end of that comment period it was fully implemented, so the maximum size out of our last /8 pool to be allocated to members is a /23.
Prop‑128 is no ASN requirement, no multi‑homing requirement for ASN, that was reached consensus at APNIC 47 and was implemented in July.
We also had a policy proposal in relation to our waiting list for IPv4. That was ‑‑ reached consensus at APNIC 47 and was implemented. So we no longer have a waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests.
MyAPNIC: So member portal, so continued work around our membership portal with some of the development that is coming is around single sign‑on and that will be consistent across our event registration system and our academy as well.
RPKI, so, you know, continued support for RPKI deployment. There is been a big focus on this in our NOGs as we work with the community, also at our APNIC meetings and conferences. Also working closely with NIRs on RPKI deployment.
RDAP: So again working with the other RIRs and the NIRs, a lot of activity going on in relation to this across the community and it's well‑established.
One of the big issues that came out of our survey that we undertook in 2018 was in relation to the recovery of unused IPv4 address. So, 57% of those respondent enters supported us doing more to help recover unused IPv4 address and what we see is around six /8s that is registered by APNIC but we can't see that they are being routed. So, we are working on trying to identify all the unrouted current resources. We are looking at unrouted historical resources as well, and also, there is some unrouted resources with the NIRs. We have a new listing service for available IPv4 addresses, and we encourage members closing their accounts to transfer them if they are not going to return them.
Sofia gave of a good presentation on Tuesday afternoon around the work we are doing on information products, so I would encourage you to look at her slides and see there is a lot of activity going on there and it's a very good story.
APNIC conferences, so the two conferences this year they are in March in south Korea, we had 714 attendees from 57 economies. APNIC 48, which was recent in September, in Thailand, we had 422 attendees, we had 52 fellows from 20 economies. It was a focus on security and RPKI, but we had our usual women in ICT and other continued event that we continue to drive at these meetings.
Coming up in February, APRICOT will be in Melbourne. It will be at the Crown Promenade. It's a beautiful city to visit and I encourage you to come, there is a lot to do and we are expecting that to be a very well attended meeting. We also ‑‑ the APNIC 50 will be in Daka Bangladesh in September next year.
Training: So continued issue that comes up in our survey is more and more training required and we are going to put more and more resources into training and development. So if you look at our face‑to‑face trainings 39, up to the end of July, we have covered 20 economies and we have had 1,065 trainees and 2,848 training days. A lot of if he can you say on developing the APNIC academy. So far, we've got, in the next slide I will give you more detail, but covering 35 economies and have had users in the academy out of a total 2263 users, so training hours 1,907.
So APNIC academy it's free and 24/7 availability. Some of the changes we launched at APNIC 48 in with five modules and also providing support for eight languages.
Technical community: So continued work in our community, supporting NOGs, participating in NOGs, root server, maintenance and deployment and continued focus on research and education, particularly in relation to security.
IPv6, so continued focus on IPv6 training, running a number of face‑to‑face workshops, 219 trainees so far, blog posts are an important part and the messaging there. Ensuring that we have IPv6 sessions at our conferences, and you can see that the APNIC membership holding IPv6 now is up over 63%.
Security, this is really the other issue that comes out of our survey and I think we see that come up in the recently announced RIPE survey as well, we are doing a lot more in the community about security awareness. We are working closely with the CERTs, working closely with the law enforcement agencies and ensuring we have security tracks in our meetings.
If I look at the governance work, continued engagement with governance, so APT, WTSA, working with the ITU, there was a recent global symposium for regulators and Clay Aiken has replaced Paul Wilson on the GEFC advisory board.
Continued work around Internet governance so the first IGF event in May, APR IGF in July, there is involvement with the IGF MAG, so Sylvia has been reappointed, the and the secretary has been appointed, and Paul, director general of APNIC, has been nominated for the chair in 2020.
APNIC foundation continues to grow. We have now got our sixth board member in place, Jun Murai came on board in September. I have a second board meeting, we have achieved over 2 million dollars in funding to date.
Foundation Activities: Continued work in the Pacific, particularly in PNG at the moment but APNIC continues with its grant programme that we run through the foundation as well.
Continued work by the ‑‑ Geoff and the labs team. Technical presentations, he is out there in the community delivering presentations that are meaningful to the broader community, there is a number of research projects underway and some very important blog work as well.
Global Engagement: So continued work with the ‑‑ in the broader Internet ecosystem with ICANN, IETF, etc. Require collaboration, so continued engagement with our other RIRs. We have a regular exchange programme where we are sending staff to other RIRs and we are also hosting staff from other RIRs. We are attending all the RIR meetings and there is a lot of work going on in relation to I‑STAR and NRO meetings and that continues for the rest of 2019.
And that's about it. I am probably don't have time for questions, but I am more than happy for you to come and talk to me after the session is finished. Thank you.
(Applause)
SPEAKER: Thank you. Now we have got Chris Woodfield from ARIN AC.
CHRIS WOODFIELD: I am with the ARIN Advisory Council. And I am here to deliver the ARIN update to better inform the RIPE community of what's been going on in the ARIN region over the past couple of months. I have got a lot of slides here so I'm going to gloss over a lot and I will also be speaking fairly quickly, my apologies to the transcribers.
You I will start with our mission statement, which I am not going to read verbatim. But this is probably very familiar to anyone that's been an RIR, it's ‑‑ our goal is to be community driven, bottom up, nonprofit based organisation, again much like the other RIRs, with the goal of managing Internet run resources and fostering the Internet community and advancing the technology.
We serve the ‑‑ most of the North American region, Canada, United States, and approximately 25 Caribbean and north Atlantic economies. The breakdown between ARIN and LACNIC territory tends to fall on language barriers or language grounds. You know, we serve primarily the English‑speaking countries in North America and Caribbean, Mexico, South America and the Spanish or non‑English‑speaking Caribbean countries tend to fall under LACNIC's jurisdiction.
We have been doing quite a bit of community engagement. ARIN on the road has become a regular thing where we hold one‑day seminars in various places in the US, as well as the Caribbean. We participate in quite a few lunches with ARIN customers. ARIN staff spends a lot of time talking to our customers. We participate in national or regional coordination governance fora, outreach and training for government law enforcement, other interested parties. We have a very active community consultation and suggestion process, which is a separate process from the policy development process, to be clear we have a quarterly e‑newsletter that if you are an ARIN member you will receive or you can subscribe yourself via our website if interested.
We focus on the multi‑stakeholder model, bottom‑up community driven policy development, IPv6 education is a primary goal of ours. Like the other RIRs, we provide a number of critical Internet services and we spend quite a bit of our resources keeping those services available and reliable, Reverse‑DNS, Whois, RPKI and we coordinate with the ASOs to maintain a consistent and usable ARIN global Internet registry system.
Lately, we have been spending a lot of resources on development in the Caribbean. Just a personal note: I first ran for an ARIN AC board seat in 2016. At the time, every board and AC member was either based in the US or Canada. Later that year, I don't know, it was in 2017, we elected our first Advisory Council members, who were from Caribbean nations, and then a year later, we elected, I believe, now two trustees, members of the board of trustees, that represent the Caribbean region. You know, us, you know, us, US and Canadian‑based members, we can do our best to be inclusive but there's no substitute for representation, and we are a better organisation for it.
We are on Inter‑RIR transfers, we have reciprocal transfer agreements with APNIC and RIPE NCC. As you can see, a lot more resources leave the ARIN region than come into the region. I would say that's mainly just due to the historical larger volume of IP inventory that is being held by ARIN organisations compared to the other organisations. You know, and there is just much more IP space entering the transfer market from the ARIN region than in the other regions, in my estimation.
The good news: We now have a substantial majority of our customers that hold IPv6 resources, in addition to v4 resources. 59% at this point. We had a substantial percentage ‑‑ of our organisation ‑‑ member organisations with v6 resources, a surprising percentage of them only have v6 resources and don't have v4. That's an interesting number to see and I hope that number ‑‑ that percentage improves over time.
A bit about the policies. A bit of background: Earlier this year the IPv4 waiting list was suspended in the ARIN region due to the discovery of a fairly substantial fraudulent operation that was discovered and dealt with, and the waiting list was frozen until we could figure out how to prevent future abuses. A number of policies were put in place using ARIN's emergency policy development process to, I hate to use the term "stop the bleeding", but to prevent similar ‑‑ to close those loopholes, may be a better term. Since then, there has been a number of policies suggested to tweak the policies that were put in place under the emergency PDP, to hopefully improve situations and possibly make the waiting list a bit more ‑‑ a bit more usable and a bit less difficult to obtain resources under.
Two policies that have been adopted ‑‑ that have been adopted pending implementation have to do with POC creation, dealing with an issue of invalid or incorrect POC object creations by third parties. So once these are implemented, you will no longer be able to create a POC object for a downstream customer of yours. If you want a detailed allocation, you will need to have your ‑‑ the SWIP recipient create a POC record and then you reference that record when you do your sub allocation. And there is a notification validation process built into POC creation as well, that will be implemented early next year.
A flurry of recommended draft policies, right now. I won't go into them in detail but they resolve, again, tweaking the waiting list policy post emergency PDP. We are standardising the size of allocations under the dedicated v6 deployment block, as well as clarifying that how many deployment blocks a network with multiple discrete networks can hold. There are a number of policies around Inter‑RIR MNA activity, defining rules around whether an entity without a Nexus in the ARIN region can hold.ARIN resourceses, if they come into them via MNA or other activity. We have a couple of policies currently under discussion under ‑‑ with the same goals in mind, as well as a policy that has come into eliminate the waiting list entirely in the ARIN region and take reclaimed addresses and move them to the IPv6 deployment reserve pool.
A little bit of other news:
We've redesigned our website, that launched in March of this year. Thank you, everybody, that consulted with us and helped us and come up with a better website and a more usable workflow for customers. We will continue to tweak that. We began a community grant programme this year and I believe we've made roughly 45,000 dollars US in grants to four projects. We are continuing to accept applications and we will be continuing the grant programme going forward. We are redesigning our internal IRR and, as I mentioned before, we have unsuspended the IPv4 waiting list so if you are interested in joining this, this is the best time to apply. So, please, do so if you'd like to.
Our next meeting will be held in Austin, Texas at the end of this month. This will start immediately after the NANOG meeting, I believe there is overlap because we have some tutorials on Wednesday afternoon, 30th October, 31st and 1st November are going to be full ARIN days. Participation is available so please sign up if you are interested in participating but can't travel to Austin and further details on our website.
That's all I have, thank you for your time and if anyone has any questions, well, if there is time for questions?
SPEAKER: Not really time for questions, we are 15 minutes behind.
(Applause)
Next up Axel Pawlik for the NRO AC update.
AXEL PAWLIK: I appreciate you very much this Friday morning and I understand most of you are just here to get good seats for the closing plenary, if you doze off and snore softly, I don't mind.
Let's see whether we can make some time for questions. This is the update from the NRO and your friendly, what is it, number resource organisation, it's the RIRs together as you probably know, our mission is to coordinate the RIR system as much as it can be coordinated and to do joint RIR activities. We are doing similar things across the RIRs and some of them benefit from some coordination and some efficiencies there.
Also of course, we do promote the multi ‑‑ the multi‑stakeholder, the bottom up self‑regulatory model together and of course we fulfil the role of the ICANN address supporting organisation and there is the website.
So we have an executive committee, I am the chair and the secretary at the same time. This is a little bit unusual, but of course, Ellen left from AFRINIC a while ago and that fell to me. Paul is vice‑chair, Oscar is treasurer and John and Patrisse are members of the committee. We have Haman as the executive secretary there and we have Susannah as a consultant and help.
We have a couple of coordination groups, mostly around communications, engineering, registration services and a new one that is being discussed, the charter being discussed: Public safety. We see similar effect in all of the RIRs region about law enforcement being quite interested in what we are doing so we want to be proactive there as well.
We have a couple of informal groups, public affairs, policy, financial officers meet regularly, the legal folks, human resources, to learn from each other, exchange our experiences across the RIRs.
We do, as one of the sort of NRO services, a quarterly number status report that is updated regularly, a comparative policy overview to help you all to understand what policies are similar with others in ‑‑ across the globe, and which are sort of dissimilar and special. We have the address supporting organisation as I mentioned, there is actually a support website for that.
As we do things together we occasionally travel to places. We have a general operations budget there that we split across the five different RIRs of just over half a million US dollars. Basically, secretariat support, some travel and ASO and AC chair travel and coordination group meetings where they have face‑to‑face meetings that need extra support that are that. We still continue to the Internet governance forum, we see that as the main focal point for all of the RIRs on Internet governance, support them as well.
And of course, for more than 20 years, I think, by now, we have the same amount that we give to ICANN for their services and of course, as of fairly recently, that is split into two separate amounts: one for the IANA contract, where we support IANA services and they do help us get our fingers on numbering resources and of course; smaller part goes to general ICANN funds.
We have, across the RIRs, what we call the joint RIR stability fund, where we have just over $2 million, US dollars pledged that is available if that should be needed and called for. What else do we do? That is the distribution of costs to break down across the RIRs and based on activities that all the RIRs do, namely registration services income.
We have the NR Review Committee. Three members from each region, two community elected members and one staff member to look at the services ‑‑ service quality that IANA gives us because we have this flurry activity, they give us addresses once every couple of years, I think, so there is not that much activity there, but no, it's good, all stable and lovely. That is the Review Committee, from our region, Filiz, Nurani and Felipe sitting on it.
You asked us carefully to look at our activities within the ICANN fold, we are doing that. We have a couple of procedures within the ASO for engagement with them. We have the SO MoU, we review the ASO regularly, first time we did it in 2011, I think, and we have a final report from the last review that is published also quite a while ago, we are sort of ticking off the activity points that we committed to.
Right. I think you have seen most of that already. A couple of technical projects that we are doing together across the RIRs.
And that's it. And I am still on yellow so that's fine. If you have any questions? I don't know if I am allowed to answer any questions. Thank you, have a lovely Friday morning.
(Applause)
SPEAKER: Next we have Filiz.
FILIZ YILMAZ: Hello everyone. I appreciate you very much. I am reporting on behalf of ICANN ASO‑AC, Address Council.
I will try to make it quick, too.
So, who are we? What we are. What we do: Address support organisation, Address Council is kind of the other part of what Axel just described under ASO. We are the Number Council part of it. And our main job is to stand there as an advisory body, during the interactions with ICANN. We are 15 members, three from each RIR region, two from each RIR are elected by the communities and one is appointed by the RIR boards.
The terms: Normally it's three years, for example in RIPE, but it differs from region to region. APNIC does two.
What we do is quite specific. And our scope is well‑defined, in our opinion. We advise ICANN board on Internet number matters, if they ask us, they would like to know more. We are tasked to keep an eye on the global policy development process in review capacity. I will talk about this in a minute.
We select two ARIN board members, two seats, seat 9 and 10, if you are familiar with the ICANN structures, and we select representatives to take part in various ICANN bodies, for example NomCom, on a regular basis.
Who we really are, these are the names. From our region, at the bottom you can see there is myself, Nurani and Herve. He is the one who is appointed by the board and two others, myself and Nurani, we are elected by the community.
Now, same way Axel already mentioned that this is also specific to the RIPE region, is that being an ASO‑AC member, representative from RIPE region, requires to be the ‑‑ requires to be sitting on the IANA RC so that falls on me and Nurani.
So, all right. The participation record: We show this because we have been keeping an eye on, you know, when we get questions, what we do and how we do. We do have regular meetings and we keep a record of them in terms of participation. Our region is up to date with all the meetings so far that that happened since the beginning of year. And there is a typo there. It will be corrected.
So, in terms of ASO activities, global development policy is one of the major things that we look into. What ‑‑ what is the global policy? The simplest definition would be those policies that relate ‑‑ that involve all IRS and ICANN to do something and take some action and that means the delegation of larger blocks and IPv4, IPv6 and AS blocks, as you know.
Then you look more into the detail how this happens, all RIRs have their own regional policy development process. The same policy proposal goes through these systems and then once they all get through in all the regions, it comes to us. At this point, our job is not to discuss the policy proposal or the, you know, the content of that policy, specific policy, but just to review the process itself, if it was all the necessary policy development process steps were taken and so, everything was good.
And then once we determine that, we ask ICANN to implement the policy.
Now, this is the theory, what we do. Now, on a day‑to‑day basis recently, there are no global policy proposals, so we haven't done anything about that and we are happy not to do anything about that. That means that things are good. Yet, we monitor this phase if there would be one, we would be ‑‑ we would be triggering our own process.
The other duty that we have selecting members to the ICANN board, that ‑‑ there was some action on that recently. In March 2019, we have selected May Mhuire for seat 10. We have two sitting in seat 9 and 10.
The other activity, as slightly Axel has mentioned, are in 2017 we had the regular review. These regular reviews happen every five years, and it is supported by the NRO EC as well. There were 18 recommendations, out of these 18 recommendations, four of them strictly relate to ASO AC Address Council, so this 15 people, and they were about making meetings and mailing lists open, so they are ‑‑ there is more transparency in our discussions. Clarifying the chair duties, what the chair does and the vice‑chair does, as well as adding term limits to these positions.
We have worked on these and we have completed these items now, and rest belong to NRO EC and most of them are signing or updating the memorandum of understanding, MoU, which needs to be done by the EC itself.
Last but not least, we have said that we select people to sit on in various ICANN bodies, and one of them which is regular NomCom. ICANN Nomcom is a group that selects ICANN board members as well as other leadership positions within the ICANN structure, like ccTLD. And ASO‑AC, we send one representative there, and in ‑‑ for 2020, we appointed Pankaj. We followed our process which included making a call in all regions for interest and receiving CVs and variation process and eventually we had E vote to select a candidate.
Now just one note: There are very competent members of this community, too, RIPE community. Please keep an eye on this, and if you are interested, follow in the announcements because this is a regular position to be filled in and we seek out for volunteers to take part in this. So, yeah, in the next year is fulfilled, but please keep an eye if you are interested.
And that will be it from my side and I think I am also good on time.
(Applause)
MARCO SCHMIDT: Good morning everybody. I work for the RIPE NCC, for the registration services, and I want to present you some numbers, some statistics from the NRO, and I am well aware that I'm ‑‑ that it's me and Kim standing between you and the wonders of coffee, so I am going to make it quick, I will not read out all the numbers, just on interesting details.
That one is start with IPv4, I will not say much about it because that's pretty much history, the distribution of IPv4 between the five RIRs, there is not much changing any more. Everything is distributed. And looking at the address space between the five RIRs also it is pretty stable, most is still with the ARIN region, then followed by APNIC and by the RIPE NCC.
There is slight changes because of Inter‑RIR transfers, address space can move between three regions currently. I will have an extra slide on that, but all in all, these numbers will not change much.
In terms of /8, what is left, yeah, we are probably all know, we are reaching the end of ‑‑ the end of that IPv4 train. There is, in four regions there is a little bit of IPv4 left. They are all are in the soft landing phases quite at the end. Just talking about the RIPE NCC, I had a look this morning, we have around 700,000 IPs left, so enough space for around 700 /22s, and, yeah, ARIN has run out that already few years ago and the others are also in soft landing phases.
That is also more or less historical data you can see quite well. The colours are sometimes a bit strange but you can see it quite nicely when each of the regions hit their soft landing policy or run‑out completely, like the black one, APNIC in 2011, it reached there /8 and since then it's less. RIPE was a year later. In ARIN, the ARIN colour disappears in 2015 when the emptied the IPv4 pool and since then it's just very, little bits and pieces all around the world.
IPv4 transfers, that is obviously a different matter. There is a lot going on and it's exactly opposite to what we saw right now as less IPv4 was available from the RIRs as more the transfers have picked up. These are the number of actual transfers, and you see the grey colour, this is the RIPE NCC, so we are actually leading since a while in the number of transfers, followed by ARIN and APNIC as well on a bit lower scale, and it's not really visible but in the last one, two years actually, AFRINIC and LACNIC have adopted transfer policies of IPv4 in their own region and you see it's slowly picking up but still very low numbers.
This was ‑‑ this is a statistic in number of transfers. Here, as I say, at RIPE NCC it's leading. If you look at the amount of addresses, it's a bit of different picture. There, it's so far, the ARIN region, so there are in amount of addresses, there is more going on, which basically shows that more transfers in the RIPE region but smaller ranges and blocks, while in ARIN the big blocks are moved around.
Talking about Inter‑RIR transfers, I mentioned it before. Currently, there are three regions that allow the transfers of IPv4 between them. Laura just mentioned in the morning LACNIC will join probably in summer 2020, so then also transfers will be possible there. And it's picking up, we are talking about especially from ARIN, there are now several 100 transfers going out, and it's actually moving around quite nicely, still if I move to the next slide, talking about space, it's mainly space moving out from ARIN to the other regions, Chris also mentioned this in his presentation. For example, between APNIC and RIPE NCC, it's actually about the same amount that is shuffled around.
Something where we don't have slides yet but I just want to mention it, it's also now possible to actually transfer AS numbers between three regions, which is ARIN, APNIC and the RIPE NCC. It's slowly starting, I just quickly checked, at this moment there have been six transfers coming all from ARIN to the RIPE NCC region, so 6 AS numbers and one AS number has moved from the RIPE region to the APNIC region.
Of course, this presentation would not be complete without IPv6. First slide also might be iliar to you ‑‑ most interesting part is maybe to see that for the RIPE NCC, we requested in June as the first of the RIRs our second /12 from IANA, but yes, there is still a lot of space available so run‑out is not very ‑‑ it's not happening very soon on IPv6.
Here, the colours are a bit strange because all the RIRs are shown with the same colour. I notice it but I didn't manage to fix it anymore but basically you see below the list from AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN LACNIC and RIPE and that is the same order that you see also there. So basically, the most right is the RIPE NCC and since actually many years, most of allocations are handed out in our region, followed usually by LACNIC, they are also very active and APNIC and ARIN also then are in the next places.
That also shows in the amount of IPv6 allocations in size, here in /32s, so most is provided in the RIPE region followed by APNIC, then ARIN and LACNIC is picking up and AFRINIC is also upcoming.
That is something about IPv6 assignments because the RIRs are not only handing out allocations, they are also handing out so‑called in our region provide independent space and here you can see that actually in APNIC, since the last four years, every year they hand out around 500 of these assignments, and other regions like the RIPE and like APNIC and LACNIC, they are in the ‑‑ in the numbers of 100, 200 of these assignments. And so we can see that it is quite stable but it ‑‑ there is a trend that is going upwards.
This is something that also Chris mentioned for the ARIN region, looking at the percentage of members that actually have IPv6 and here, LACNIC is leading example, it's actually almost 100%, 94% that have IPv6, and the other ones, yeah, are between 50 to 60% of the members have IPv6, and we also include information how many members are IPv6 only, and there it is significant that in ARIN, almost 10% of the members only have IPv6, probably related to the fact that since 2015, except of the waiting list you cannot get any IPv4 any more from ARIN, and in the other regions it's still around or less than 1% only members.
AS numbers: Last type of Internet resource where I want to show something, this is difficult to read, but basically it just shows that there is a lot of unallocated, 32‑bit AS numbers out there and we all just start handing out space of this in all the regions. Here, some division shown, again the colours show here now how many are 16‑bit and how many are 32‑bit and the order of the RIRs is like shown below, basically most to the right is the RIPE NCC that is handing out most of the AS numbers, and also we actually still handing out most of the 16‑bit AS numbers. Most of the others, especially LACNIC, they are only or almost only handing out 32‑bit numbers.
These are some numbers, how much AS numbers have been handed out. Not surprisingly because we hand out the most we are leading there, and ARIN also has quite big amount and the other one in the lower areas.
This brings me to the end of my slide. I gave 20 seconds to the follow‑up, if there are no questions, thank you very much. Oh, no, I am sorry, Rudiger.
RUDIGER VOLK: Kind of a question is essentially to all of the NRO, maybe actually it should have been most to Axel as the NRO executive, some may remember that at the Reykjavik meeting we discussed some pretty bad failures of the data that the NRO is providing. I am ‑‑ and I heard, I got the reassurance that all the RIR heads were essentially in the ‑‑ and the rooms the things were discussed and some action would be taken. I am kind of disappointed to hear nothing about that, and kind of for the specific RIR presentations, actually it would be nice to also have the feedback, what particular that RIR is doing in the quality assurance for that data flow.
MARCO SCHMIDT: We can take that off‑line and I am curious which data you found.
RUDIGER VOLK: Kind of, I would expect at least a statement from the NRO right now whether ‑‑ whether there is any message on that issue or at which time and space we should expect something.
MARCO SCHMIDT: Thank you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Martijn Schmidt with I£D.net. I have question about the inter region IPv4 transfers. What you can see is that there is a lot of address space moving away from the ARIN region, whereas in the others it's sort of roughly equal. Has there been any feedback collected when there is transfer going on, why that is happening?
MARCO SCHMIDT: That is mostly historical reasons because in ARIN there recites a lot of this so‑called legacy space and space that was handed out before the RIR system was established and a big part of those blocks are basically now moved to other regions and I don't have the numbers in my head but also we have done some research what blocks exactly so I can maybe get your details and send that up to you.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: The reason why I was asking is we are one of those members at ARIN with only IPv6 space, that is not for the reason that we could not get IPv4 at the start but for the reason that we transferred our IPv4 to RIPE and this is not related to any acquisition or anything but just features that are completely lacking within the ARIN region when it comes to a functioning IRR DB with validation of the route objects, RPKI tell that can be accessed by anybody and so on.
MARCO SCHMIDT: Okay. That's interesting information, thank you. If there are no more questions, then thank you very much.
(Applause)
KIM DAVIES: Good morning everyone. I am going to give you a quick glimpse of what is happening at the IANA.
Firstly, our team, this is the team that provide service not just to the number resource community but to the domain name community and the protocol parameter community as well.
First thing I wanted to update you about is the Reverse‑DNS service that we offer. We provide an API to the five RIRs to maintain their delegation records in‑addr.arpa and IPv6 in‑addr.arpa, we have been doing active work on improving this service, by improving the platform that it is served on and later in the year doing software improvements. We did have a little bit of of a false start earlier in the year where we had a little bit of downtime and we worked with the RIRs to recover from that, and as a result, we have taken a very cautious approach to how we have done the platform upgrade as a result. We have been running our new platform and old platform in parallel now for many months and we are working with the RIRs to sign off on its readiness for launch. Additionally, we are doing software improvements to add some missing functionality to that platform that we would like to see if there, as well as doing software upgrades.
One thing I wanted to share with you today for the first time is we have launched a new service specifically dedicated to number resources. In the past when we were applying the global allocation policies for IPv4, IPv6 and AS numbers, we would use a variety of sources that we would informally aggregate together. Now, we have put all those input data into one place, that is available for everyone to look at. So this is a targeted display of RIR registration rates in particular that informs the global allocation policy.
What I am going to show you largely to drill down the specific details by RIR and essentially, answers the key question, which is: Is an individual RIR now eligible for an additional allocation of either IPv6 or AS numbers?
This is what it looks like, on the front page you get to see an overview of the allocation rate of the different RIRs, both in terms of IP addresses, obviously this is just IPv6, and AS numbers.
More interesting is if you go into the individual view of a particular RIR. Here, you can see visually the threshold which an RIR needs to pass in order to be eligible for an additional allocation of number resources. You can see the current status of their eligibility.
We have a trend graph there which in the case of IPv6 you don't really see any distinction due to the run down rate being so slow. And if you scroll down the page there is additional interesting data there that is not directly applicable to the allocation of the global policy but nonetheless, is interesting for some. When we were building this service we spoke to the RIRs in particular and asked them what additional information would be useful for us to share and what we have on there is based on than feedback.
Similarly for the AS number registry, we have a similar presentation. You can see eligibility threshold here, obviously the AS global allocation policy is a little different to the IPv6, and in particular, here you can see that according to this trend analysis that RIPE will be eligible for an addition Al/AS block very soon.
This is updated daily and it is ‑‑ we are now moving forward, will be the tool we use to apply the global allocation policy. This is the first version so we appreciate feedback on any way we can refine this service as we move forward.
In terms of our customer satisfaction, we are doing it a little different this year. Historically we did only an annual survey of all of our customers, this year we split it into two different processes. Firstly we do an annual survey of our key stakeholders and we ask questions relating to the kinds of engagement we do with the community, engagement like I'm doing here today, is it fit for purpose, do we need to expand it, do we need to change it? These are the kinds of questions we are posing. We just finished the survey window a few days ago, and we will be sharing the results of that survey next month. In addition, we now are starting this year do a customer satisfaction survey at the end of every request that we do, so if you have interacted with the IANA, we have completed a request for you, you will get a follow‑up survey a few hours later and we ask you how did we do and I will get to that in a little bit.
For the last quarter we had a 36% response rate and an 82% satisfaction rate from customers.
So, this is the survey that we send at the end of tickets. I will skip through the details. I am sure all of you have received this from many different companies that you interact with.
These are the satisfaction rates, I think the only thing I make notable here is we didn't get any responses from the numbering communities so they are not actually shown on this graph.
So one thing as we pilot this and explore the data we are getting back, we are coming to realise is, it doesn't distinguish between two different kinds of satisfaction. There is the dissatisfaction a customer might have because we didn't do a good job, maybe we were too slow and our answers were unclear and maybe we were rude, I don't know. There is a number of different ways you might be dissatisfied with the way staff might have interacted with you in a request but in addition, there is policy dissatisfaction which is a lot of the job of IANA staff is to say no to people, you have asked for a resource you are not eligible for, there is an RFC that dictates the rules by which we make an allocation, there is a policy, and a lot of our job is to say no to people and obviously that have tends to lead to a negative response in the satisfaction survey. Future work for us is to refine the approach so we can better separate those two kinds of responses and present a clearer picture on how our staff are doing.
As always, we produce monthly performance reports on how we have done allocations for the RIRs, you can find that online at IANA.org/performance.
And last topic is we now have our FY 21 budget out for public comment. We welcome any feedback on what our priorities should be for FY 21. For those not familiar with the budgeting process, we have to set the IANA budget well in advance. The headline is that ‑‑ proposed FY is very similar to FY 20, we are proposing as a stable head count, a lot of the projects we are working on roll over year to year and we don't envisage the volume of requests to change in a significant way. Nonetheless, please do take a look if you are interested and any feedback you might have is very welcome.
That's it, and two minutes over. Thank you.
(Applause)
SPEAKER: Thank you. The end of the session.
LIVE CAPTIONING BY AOIFE DOWNES, RPR
DUBLIN, IRELAND
