November 2014 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
by Lu 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

Hi Thanks guys for joining my idea, the reason why I asked in the first place is why don't we have a equal IPv4 working group then, if address technical issue alone worth for a wg, then for sure we are facing more issue with v4 than v6( in which practically still quite low usage for today's internet). And, what IPv6 wg has to do IPv6 transfer policy--it is not technical thing I believe. That said, I don't want to kill IPv6 wg, but just hoping v6 will have the normal treatment just like what we do with v4. Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:00, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy > (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) > 2. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Aleksi Suhonen) > 3. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) > 4. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (lir(a)elisa.fi) > 5. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > 6. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 > From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 > address policy > To: Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680(a)webmail.messagingengine.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote: >> >> Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? >> >> That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and >> not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. > > My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It > lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago > (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else > IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play > administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - > which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering > live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like > in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when > more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). > > Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF > that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. > Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). > Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier > to read and understand. > > Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much > relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases > of LIR consolidation. > Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably > go live before we sort out this issue). > >> No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case >> in order to keep this discussion clean. > > Done :) > > -- > Radu > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200 > From: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203(a)ssd.axu.tm> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hello, > >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this > proposal. > > -- > +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ > Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy > > You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100 > From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm(a)boeddinghaus.de> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503(a)boeddinghaus.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >>> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. >> > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" > would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" > WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is > about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, > just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have > a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is > still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with > IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be > addressed in a "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm >

4 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by lir＠elisa.fi 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

> > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm > Boeddinghaus > Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26 > To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing > lists] > > > > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: > > Hello, > > On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: > > Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we > need > two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as > normal > IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only > about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In > essence, I support this proposal. > > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would > be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals > with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is about > contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just > have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look > into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot > of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning > from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a > "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please > let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need > that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as > we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm > > > Hi all, I fully agree with Wilhelm. Rgds, Ray

1 0

FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > 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, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 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

3 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Andy Davidson 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > [... Allow AS Number Transfers ...] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Support the end result but don't support text as it stands. - Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are available from the RIPE NCC. - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with the NCC. -a

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Andy Davidson 09 Nov '14

09 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > [... Allow IPv6 Transfer ...] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Support. -a

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 Carsten Schiefner 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:15, Marco Schmidt 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 > > 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-11 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification for “Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC”)
by Carsten Schiefner 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:45, Marco Schmidt 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. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC

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 Carsten Schiefner 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:05, Marco Schmidt 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 > > 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Roger Jørgensen 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > 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. Sorry for not fully support this as everyone else has done so far :-) I support the idea and we really need it, but I have mixed feelings about two words in "section 8.0 Transfer of IPv6 resources" it is in the first sentence: "Any holder of IPv6 address space is allowed to transfer complete or partial blocks of IPv6 address space that were previously allocated or assigned to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry system." Do we really need to have "... or partial" there? Do we understand the consequences of those two words? ... yes I do see several cases where it those two words will save the day, and the amount of abuse is limited but still I'll wonder if we really need it. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's done. ;-) Tore

4 3