March 2013 - address-policy-wg

2012-10 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Mar '13

12 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-10 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

12 11

Policy Proposal 2012-06 Revert "Run Out Fairly" implemented
by David Hilario 06 Mar '13

06 Mar '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-06, Revert "Run Out Fairly" , has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv4 assignments and IPv4 allocations under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012-… The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582 IPv4 assignments request forms have been updated. You can access the request forms through the LIR Portal or online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-583 The supporting notes are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-584 If you have any questions, please contact<ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, David Hilario Registration Services RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

In reposting 2012-02, I realized that this policy had awkwardly referred to "within the RIPE region" and based on comments received, I realized we needed to make it more global in nature. Hence I changed it to refer to "RIR's with compatible policies". Section 5.5 of the IPv4 policy had previously been meant for intra-RIR transfers only. So, in making this policy change, the goal is to tweak the intra-RIR transfer policy to allow a non-conflicting inter-RIR transfer policy to co-exist.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

In reposting 2012-03, I updated the policy to refer only to time specific changes, ie the change from 3 months (and 12 months with 2012-06) to 24 months. I did not add any embellishments about the RIPE region that are not needed. The tweaks to section 5.5 fit with policy 2012-02 where we talk about the global nature. I prefer to see 2012-03 approved and the need period for all transfers to become 24 months without mentioning the transfer scope. This policy is only about the time for needs justification.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Christoph Neukirch 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Am 28.02.13 14:04 schrieb "Marco Schmidt" unter <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: > >Dear Colleagues > >A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > >Regards > >Marco Schmidt >on behalf of the Policy Development Office >RIPE NCC supported -- kind regards Christoph Neukirch

2 1

RIPE Policy Proposals 2012-02 and 2012-03.
by Matt Mather 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hi there, I am representing GTHL, AS31655 and I am trying to find out a little more about the polices mentioned in the subject line of this mail. I am particularly interested in when the current phase will to come conclusion and if proposals will either become policy or not. If you help shed some light on this I would appreciate it. Thanks and regards, Matt Mather. Matt Mather IP Design & Test Engineer [cid:175335.png@93d11731.469d99cb] +44 333 240 3348 [cid:a4dd06.png@ca9b06cb.4cb60299] +44 7848 026 072 [cid:2064f1.png@a37f7ca9.4fa780ae] matt.mather(a)gamma.co.uk [cid:f2ed08.png@33e479c2.45839582] http://www.gamma.co.uk [cid:image81cfba.JPG@07754e56.4a9e851f] Follow us [cid:image18ed05.GIF@bcc7563d.4f9c7814][cid:image018a85.GIF@21bb7df6.4190c541][cid:imagee5cab3.GIF@aca78f6f.4692f34b]<http://twitter.com/WeAreGamma> ________________________________ This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster(a)gamma.co.uk Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.

2 2