August 2011 - address-policy-wg

Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
by DI. Thomas Schallar 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello! What ist the current status on the multihomed v6 PI topic? regards, Thomas

32 70

2008-08 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-08, "Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals Reason for withdrawal: after carefully following the discussion in the Concluding Phase of the Policy Development Process, the proposer is of the opinion that consensus on this proposal is not possible within the RIPE community. As a consequence, the proposer has decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

14 27

IANA implementation analysis of proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA"
by Emilio Madaio 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

Dear Colleagues, In order to provide a more comprehensive overview of the expected implementation aspects of proposal 2011-01, the RIPE NCC sought input from IANA staff. Below is the analysis produced by Leo Vegoda. We hope that this input will be useful to RIPE community discussion of this proposal. We also note that the current Review Phase for the proposal will end on 25 August 2011. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC --------oooooooooo-------------- IANA staff impact analysis of RIPE policy proposal 2011-01 This analysis considers the impact of ratification of RIPE policy proposal 2011-01 (as a part of GPP-IPv4-2011) by the ICANN Board of Directors. 1. The policy would require ICANN, as the IANA function operator, to establish a Recovered IPv4 Pool. The pool would have to include “any fragments that may be left over in the IANA”. In order to do this, ICANN staff would have to work closely with the five RIRs’ staffs to make sure the initial pool included all fragments assigned to IANA. It is not clear whether this policy proposal is intended to supersede the IETF’s right to make IPv4 assignments for “specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks)” as documented in section 4.3 of RFC 2860. This should be clarified but that can probably be done by way of assertions from the NRO rather than a revision to the policy text. In the event that the policy is intended to supersede RFC 2860 there is a potential issue with the internal reservation of small blocks address blocks that have been informally reserved for IETF standards track work currently in progress. 2. It would replace the current procedure for Updating legacy Class A IPv4 allocations, which was agreed with the NRO in February 2007. This is because the text includes a statement that “The Recovered IPv4 Pool will initially contain any fragments that may be left over in the IANA. It will also hold any space returned to the IANA by any other means” and this presumably include address space returned directly by registrants. 3. Once it was activated by an RIR declaring that it has less than a /9 in its inventory, IANA would have to make the first allocation. IANA would then have to make additional allocations on 1 March and 1 September each year, if there is enough address space left in the pool. The minimum allocation size would be a /24 and the “allocation unit” used in each allocation would be determined by dividing the total pool by five and rounding down to the nearest CIDR boundary. As an example, if the pool contained 27 /24s, each RIR would be allocated a /22 (or the equivalent made from multiple /24 prefixes) because 5.4 /24s is not on a CIDR boundary. There is no text stating that the “allocation units” must be a single prefix and so it seems reasonable to make them up from a bundle of prefixes when necessary. 4. All address space added to the Recovered IPv4 Pool would be registered as such in the IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry. Similarly, allocations from the pool would also be registered. This would require the granularity of registration to move from /8 boundaries as is currently the case and as such could inflate the size of the registry from 256 lines to several thousand. --------oooooooooo--------------

2 1

2011-01 Review Period extended until 25 August 2011 (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms by the IANA)
by Emilio Madaio 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25 August 2011. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 14

2010-01 Proposal Accepted (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2010-01 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The new policy "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-526 The updated policies "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" and "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" are available respectively at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-523 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-524 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-525 You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-03 Last Call for Comments (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-03 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 September 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-03 New Draft Document Published (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-03 has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and Impact Analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 10 August 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

6 5

2011-02 Review Period extended until 23 August 2011 (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposed change to RIPE Document has been extended until 23 August 2011. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Discussion standards
by Sander Steffann 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Hello working group, Declaration of hats: speaking on behalf of the chairs of this working group: Gert Döring and myself. We have noticed that in the last months a lot of messages about policy proposals contain assumptions, feelings and expectations. While these can be very important in a discussion it is very hard to discuss such statements. Too much of this and it can make policy development nearly impossible. If we want to make good decisions and work towards consensus we need to raise our standards a bit. I want to ask everybody here to add supporting facts, numbers, statistics or other data wherever possible. That doesn't mean that nobody should express their doubts or opinions! All input is still welcome. But please be aware that when trying to judge if consensus has been reached we might give less weight to input that has no data backing it. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG Co-chair

1 0

2006-05 Last Call for Comments (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 08 Aug '11

08 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2006-05 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 5 September 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0