October 2014 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Gert Doering 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Dear Address Policy WG, while I can understand that beaches and drinks are more attractive than policy work, we have a proposal here that needs a bit of caring - this one is in Review Phase until Friday, and has received exactly one comment yet (strong support). I could use a *bit* more feedback here... thanks, Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:30:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, > "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", > has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by > the RIPE NCC. > > Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: > > - Extending the fulfilment of the IPv6 requirement to include any > globally routable unicast IPv6 address block > - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 August 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

21 46

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Andreas Vogler 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

I support this proposal. Regards Andreas Vogler Geneon GmbH I Gutenstetter Str. 8a I 90449 Nürnberg I Entwicklungszentrum Berlin I Löwestr. 25 I 10249 Berlin I Tel.: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-21 I Fax: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-20 I Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert I Registergericht Nürnberg HRB 17193 I USt-IdNr.: DE207317266 I E-Mail: andreas.vogler(a)geneon.de I www.geneon.de Ein Unternehmen der Willmy MediaGroup >>> www.willmy.de -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:57 An: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Andreas Vogler 31 Oct '14

31 Oct '14

I support this proposal. Regards Andreas Vogler Geneon GmbH I Gutenstetter Str. 8a I 90449 Nürnberg I Entwicklungszentrum Berlin I Löwestr. 25 I 10249 Berlin I Tel.: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-21 I Fax: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-20 I Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert I Registergericht Nürnberg HRB 17193 I USt-IdNr.: DE207317266 I E-Mail: andreas.vogler(a)geneon.de I www.geneon.de Ein Unternehmen der Willmy MediaGroup >>> www.willmy.de -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 13:43 An: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Oct '14

30 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Andre Keller 30 Oct '14

30 Oct '14

Hi, I fully support this proposal. Regards andré

1 0

2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Oct '14

30 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âContractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Regionâ)
by Peter Koch 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:15:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available > for discussion. > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 # Any resources allocated/assigned to the RIPE NCC will be registered in the # RIPE Database. All policies set for allocating or assigning resources to # LIRs apply equally to the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC as a resource holder should # fulfil the same basic requirements also expected of normal LIRs, such as returning # unused resources. As an exception from normal LIRs, RIPE NCC as a resource holder # is exempted from signing any of the normal contracts required for number resource allocation/assignment. RFC 2119, as mentioned in the introduction, is not relevant to this document (see earlier mail). In this case, the change appears straightforward even if should vs must was interpreted in a natural language context. On second thought, it remains undefined what the "basic requirements" are (leaving another ambiguity) and it isn't clear whether the list of exemptions is exhaustive. As an example: is the NCC undergoing a regular or case by case audit and who is supposed to execute that? Arbiters are supposed to evaluate requests, but how would the NCC's adherence to the "basic requirements, [...] such as returning unused resources" be supervised? There's no vox populi appeal to the arbiters. But wait, we have a general community involvement in the NCC's operation and my perception was it was considered functioning. So, I'm not really convinced that an s/should/must/ would prevent the NCC from running wild if it wanted to. On the other hand, I might be looking forward to future policy proposals and further should vs must (or similar) discussions except that the PDP rarely provides the right slot for this level of detail. In other words: what's being tried to fixed here is likely to happen again. Back to 2014-08: it's either unnecessary or incomplete. -Peter PS: Obviously in this case it is prudent for the NCC as the submitter to err on the side of caution

3 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Allocating/Assigning Resources > to the RIPE NCC" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 > I see where this is heading. :) I support this change as well, very sensible! -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-07 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 > > As far as I can tell, all of these changes are sensible. I support them. -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-09 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”)
by Nick Hilliard 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

On 23/10/2014 14:28, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv6 Address Space Policy For > Internet Exchange Points is now available for discussion. the tl;dr for my objection on this proposal is that it doesn't make much sense from the IXP point of view. The equivalent ipv4 policy notes: "This space will be used to run an IXP peering LAN; other uses are forbidden". That's kind-of ok for ipv4 - not perfect by any means, but ok (as a reference anecdata point, INEX is still using a single /24 assigned in 2004 for both peering and management, because it was hard to justify more at the time). For IPv6, it would be normal to assign a /64 per peering LAN, leaving 65535 other /64 subnets unused in the /48 assignment. For better or worse, many IXPs in the RIPE NCC service region use some of the other space in their /48 for management purposes. If this policy change goes through, then the RIPE NCC is mandating that they renumber this management into other space. The RIPE community doesn't have the authority to mandate this for existing IXPs. For future start-up IXPs, it often makes more sense to use a single prefix to provide address space for both peering and management, where management connectivity is handled by policy routing from the IXP's ASN. Maybe it might be appropriate for the IXP to use separate prefixes at the stage when an IXP has grown to the point that it attracts enough DDoS traffic directed at the IXP lan to cause trouble, but not before. Even then, this is a decision that the IXP should make: it's not the job of the RIPE community to tell the IXP how to manage their policy routing. Nick

6 6

WG chair re-selection procedure
by Sander Steffann 24 Oct '14

24 Oct '14

Hello working group, The collective of RIPE working group chairpersons has decided that each RIPE working group should have some rules regarding the re-selection of the chairs. Gert and I have come up with the following: The RIPE Address Policy Working Group should attempt to maintain two Chairpersons whenever possible. Once per year one of the chairs will offer to stand down to allow new candidates to become chair. This will be announced by sending an email to the working group mailing list at least two weeks before the start of a RIPE meeting. Anybody is allowed to volunteers for the chair position, including the chair who offered to stand down. At the next RIPE meeting those present at the working group session will determine by consensus who will take the available chair position. If no consensus can be reached in the working group session then the current chairs will stay to ensure the continued stability of the working group. Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A generic description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in RIPE-542 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). Address policy working group chairs are also expected to coordinate with the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and/or questions arising in the either the working group or the RIPE NCC regarding address policy. As working group chairs are usually determined by consensus during the working group session at a RIPE meeting we will also determine consensus on this procedure there. Therefore please provide your feedback before or at the next RIPE meeting: RIPE 69 in London. Sincerely, Gert & Sander

18 59

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âIPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Regionâ)
by Peter Koch 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:37:23PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Addresses for Internet > Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 1) the motivating pointer to RFC 2119 is misguided. RIPE documents do not make a reference to RFC 2119 in general and even less so in this particular case. There's already enough confusion in the IETF with "must" vs "MUST", i.e., when keywords do and don't bear their special meaning. 2) the change is unnecessary and does not provide clarification. The text is already clearly stating that assigned address space stays with the service and will (have to) be returned to the RIPE NCC if the service is terminated. A "should" is sufficient. 3) The status of ripe-233, especially in the light of the omnibus document ripe-623 is probably a bit vague. ripe-233 exists for historic reference, therefore any change applied by this proposal would retroactively try to change the rule for past assignments with no new assignments to be expected (for lack of policy). 4) Issuing a new document with a new timestamp is likely to cause more confusion than it strives to solve (lacking sth equivalent to a "Historic" document status and/or explanatory introductory text in the updated document). Resolved, no support -Peter

2 1

Five Policy Proposals to Improve RIPE Documents
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, Later today, we will publish five policy proposals on the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List. We wanted to let you know in advance what these are about. In the Address Policy WG sessions at RIPE 67 and RIPE 68, it was discussed that the language in several RIPE Documents should be improved by changing instances of “should” to “must” where this was creating unwanted ambiguity. You can find more information here: https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/288-APWG-co-presentation-should.pdf After receiving guidance from the RIPE community, RIPE NCC has decided to start the process to clarify the language in these RIPE Documents by submitting these proposals into the PDP. For clarity, and as instructed by the community, there will be one proposal per RIPE Document. If you wish to provide your feedback to a specific proposed change, please make sure that you reply to the appropriate announcement and thread. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region”)
by James Blessing 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On 23 October 2014 14:37, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Addresses for Internet > Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 > Support J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by James Blessing 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On 23 October 2014 14:15, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available > for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 > Support J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-09 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”)
by James Blessing 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On 23 October 2014 14:28, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv6 Address Space Policy For > Internet Exchange Points is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-09 > Support J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-07 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by James Blessing 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On 23 October 2014 14:05, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 > Support J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”)
by James Blessing 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

On 23 October 2014 14:45, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Allocating/Assigning Resources > to the RIPE NCC" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Support J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region”)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-09 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points”)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-07 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

APWG Agenda for RIPE 69 - draft 1
by Gert Doering 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in London in the following time slots: Wednesday, Nov 5, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, Nov 5, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection Process - presenting the current draft document - discussion C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE67 2014-02 Allow IPv4 PI transfer (consensus, policy) 2014-01 Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4 (consensus, policy) 2012-02 Policy for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 address space (withdrawn, replaced by 2014-05) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders) 2014-04 relax IPv6 requirement for allocations from last /8 (Martin Pels) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfer of Internet Resources (Sandra Brown) 2014-07 2014-08 2014-09 2014-10 2014-11 "SHOULD" and "MUST" in the policy text (Andrea Cima, from the NCC RS, in response to the request from the WG at RIPE 68, one proposal per occurance) N.N. Transfer Policy for AS Numbers (Erik Bais) N.N. Transfer Policy for IPv6 Allocations (Erik Bais) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." Z. AOB -- 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce]2014-05 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of InternetResources) (Erik Bais)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 21 Oct '14

21 Oct '14

Hi John, Tore, and Steve, Thanks for your excellent dialog to seek compatibility between the ARIN and RIPE inter-RIR transfer policies. >>Actually, that is not clear, as ARIN's Inter-RIR transfer policy language >>requires that an RIR have needs-based policy in order to be compatible for >>transfers to/from ARIN, and having solely a reference to the another RIR's >>policy could be argued (by some) to not be actual needs-based policy for >>RIPE. >>Specific needs-based language in RIPE's policy would be much cleaner, as >>well as having RIPE NCC implementing something defined by the RIPE community >>rather than criteria that may change at any time without RIPE community >>involvement. Understood, the requirement is for needs based language specifically in the RIPE policy, that is independent of the other RIR's policy. How about: "For transfers from RIR regions which require the RIPE region to have needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the RIPE NCC for the use of at least 50% of the transferred resources within 5 years." Is this a needs based policy that is compatible with ARIN's requirement? Thanks Sandra

2 1