February 2009 - address-policy-wg

2008-05 New Policy Proposal (Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM)
by Filiz Yilmaz 09 Apr '09

09 Apr '09

PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-05.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 October 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
by Filiz Yilmaz 27 Feb '09

27 Feb '09

PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 19 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

15 29

2009-01 New Policy Proposal
by Milton L Mueller 25 Feb '09

25 Feb '09

A typo? Addresses will be allocated to RIRs "Providing that the RIR satisfies the allocation criteria described section 4.2.2,..." There is no 4.2.2. Does it mean 3.2.2.? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

2 1

Re: 2009-01 New Policy Proposal
by Milton L Mueller 24 Feb '09

24 Feb '09

Some short questions about this policy: 1. What does this policy do that a globalized transfer policy would not do faster, better and with less overhead? 2. Is this policy proposal motivated by the asymmetry in RIR's transfer policies? (e.g., the failure of ARIN to adopt a transfer policy despite North Am. being where most of the unused v4 space is) 3. In regards to Remco's statement: > The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating > IPv4 will become unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new > policy that keeps the structure between IANA and RIRs in place > and gives IANA something useful to do. Why should we care about "keeping the structure between IANA and RIRs in place?" (not a rhetorical question, really want to know) 4. Did anyone answer Heather's excellent question: > If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate > need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the > quarterly interval and return it to IANA? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

1 0

2007-01 implementation clarification
by Andy Davidson 24 Feb '09

24 Feb '09

Hi, A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what is the correct way to request PI? In UK law, a business might not be incorporated, but in such circumstances, the income and actions of the business are treated as the income and actions of the principal person behind the business. In such circumstances does this mean the individual should apply for PI? Previously I'd have advised to use the trading name to apply for PI, but under new rules I am aware that PI holders need to be able to sign contracts... The trading name might not be a legal entity able or willing to sign. They plan to multihome, their need for PI appears justified to me. Andy

5 4

Minutes from RIPE 57 (Dubai)
by Gert Doering 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

Hi APWG, the minutes from RIPE 57 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r57-minutes.html if you feel there is anything missing or inaccurate, please let us know. Many thanks to the folks at the RIPE NCC for this amazing job! Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 16 Feb '09

16 Feb '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that phase one of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", will be implemented on 3 March 2009. This change will require that an End User have a contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC before the End User can receive Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. The full text of policy proposal 2007-01 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Phase one addresses the implementation of the new policy in relation to all new requests for independent numbering resource assignments. Please note that from 3 March 2009, End Users requesting independent numbering resources must sign a contract with a sponsoring LIR or with the RIPE NCC in order to receive those resources. Requests for independent numbering resources that do not demonstrate such a contract will not be processed by the RIPE NCC. Information on the required content of contracts between End Users and sponsoring LIRs is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Phase two of policy proposal 2007-01 will address the contractual relationship between End Users who hold previously assigned independent numbering resources and the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. A plan for implementation of this phase will be presented at the next meeting of the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, which will take place at the RIPE 58 Meeting in Amsterdam from 4-8 May 2009. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

5 5

2008-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

PDP Number: 2008-09 ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-09, "ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-09.html Given the recent publication of RFC 5396, the proposer and the Address Policy WG Chairs have agreed that there is no need to keep 2008-09 in the RIPE Policy Development Process. RFC 5396 can be found at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc5396.txt Following feedback received in RIPE 57, the Address Policy WG Chairs have also concluded that the current RIPE Policy Document ripe-389, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures", will be updated so that the reference to the previous registration format is deleted from the policy document. We have now published a draft RIPE Policy Document, in which the changes are marked: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft-2008-09.html We encourage you to read this document and, if you have any comments, send them to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 12 March 2009. After this date we will publish the draft document as a RIPE Policy Document. A further announcement will be made shortly regarding the full implementation of the ASPLAIN registration format for 32-bit AS Numbers by the RIPE NCC. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by IP-Office KPN 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

All, Thank you for all replies to my question:) We support proposal 2006-01 as is and Andy's proposal to go forward. With kind regards, Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office(a)kpn.com -----Original Message----- On 10 Feb 2009, at 12:47, Gert Doering wrote: > But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever > reason, > a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed > this > is not currently covered by 2006-01. [...] > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. Thanks Andy ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN MailScan, powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' ________________________________________________________________________ ______________

1 0

2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
by Filiz Yilmaz 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

17 21