December 2012 - address-policy-wg

DRAFT Mintues from the APWG Meeting at RIPE 65
by Emilio Madaio 13 May '13

13 May '13

Dear Colleagues, the draft minutes from the APWG sessions at the recent RIPE 65 meeting have been now published: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-65 Please let us know if there is anything that needs to be corrected or amended. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
by Emilio Madaio 05 Jan '13

05 Jan '13

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

23 23

2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Dec '12

24 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

33 40

2012-06 Last Call for Comments (Revert "Run Out Fairly")
by Emilio Madaio 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 (not 2010-06) New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Gert Doering 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Hi, the review phase of this proposal is now over. The support from the community was strong and clear, so chairs and proposer have decided to move to Last Call -> Emilio will send the formal announcement tomorrow. (For the sake of the list archives: there was a mistake in the Subject: line of the announcement - it's 2012-06, not 2010-06, of course. The links given in the announcement mail are correct, and from the feedback given, I'm convinced everybody understood which proposal he or she was commenting on - so I don't think any harm was done by the typo, and we can go ahead) Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:28:52PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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

2012-05 Last Call for Comments (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Conclusions after review phase of 2012-05
by Sander Steffann 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Hello working group, After careful consideration of everything that was discussed during the last review phase of policy proposal 2012-05 the working group chairs have decided to move 2012-05 to last call. There has been some discussion on whether the discussion on what the RIPE NCC should publish should be done using formal policy and the PDP. Considering the strong discussions on this topic we feel that it is appropriate to set this in policy, so we continue to use the PDP. We hereby ask the PDO (a.k.a. Emilio) to do all the paperwork necessary and move this policy proposal to last call. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy forInter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

3. Re: 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:57:07 +0100 From: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <50B9F093.9040700(a)redpill-linpro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Can someone explain more about what is involved in the audit? I was picturing more of a needs justification process where the applicant would illustrate that current IP's were 80% utilized. Is that the same as an audit? Also, Tore's last point on 2012-03 should be applied to the passing of 2012-02. In the event that 2012-03 is agreed to, and needs justification is extended from 3 months to 24 months, then 5.5 will have new wording to accommodate the change. Further, if 2012-02 is passed to allow for inter-RIR transfers to-from RIR's with like-policies, then Chapter 5.5 “Transfers of Allocations” of “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”; will require an additional wording change. Specifically, the second paragraph of 5.5 says: "...address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. " and if Inter-RIR transfers are approved this will change to LIR's of another RIR. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR TransferPolicy Proposal)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

> it would appear that the phrase ?Within the RIPE NCC service region,? > is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section > 5.5. I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says ?this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region?. It appears to me that the new paragraph being added (?other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation?), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ I agree with Tore. While in the immediate term, 2012-03 will apply to intra-RIR transfers within the RIPE region, the intent is to extend the needs justification period from 3 months to 24 months. Now that the RIPE NCC is down to the last /8, when an LIR is in need of IPv4 addresses, it is placed in the position of procuring them from another LIR within region. Doing a procurement every 3 months would be onerous, and extension is needed. However, to Tore's point, there is no point in restricting the policy to needs justification. It will be an independent decision to approve the inter-RIR policy 2012-02, but should this happen, the needs justification period should be common for any procurement. I think the intent of the rewording was to emphasize that it is a RIPE NCC Policy, but it could be misconstrued to imply that the policy is for transfers within the RIPE NCC, and not for any transfer to/from the RIPE NCC. My suggestion, since it is part of the RIPE NCC Policy Manual, would be to remove the words, as recommended by Tore. If 2012-02 is approved, it will make wording changes to 5.5 to allow for inter-RIR transfers. 5.5 Transfers of Allocations Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an End User. Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC, following the policies set for receiving further allocations within RIPE region (see the Section 5.3 Additional Allocations of this document). Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

>From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0