November 2014 - address-policy-wg

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-02, "Allow PI transfer"
by Ioanna Spyroulia 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer”. In accordance with the new policy, End Users can transfer complete or partial blocks of Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 address space that were previously assigned to them by the RIPE NCC. To initiate a PI transfer, the sponsoring LIR of either the transferring or receiving End User should open a ticket with the RIPE NCC by sending an email to lir-help(a)ripe.net. The procedure describing the requirements for PI transfers can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/transf… The list of all PI assignments transferred under this policy can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 Kind regards, Ioanna Spyroulia RIPE NCC Registration Services

3 3

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

2014-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points")
by Marco Schmidt 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2014-09, "Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points"" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-09 Reason for withdrawal: During the discussion phase there was feedback that IPv6 assignments for IXPs should be able to be used for other purposes besides a peering LAN. The proposer therefore believes that the current term "should" reflects the RIPE community’s understanding of this policy, and so decided withdraw the proposal. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
by Lu 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

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. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014年11月9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. FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 > Transfers) (Erik Bais) > 2. Re: 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) > (Andy Davidson) > 3. Re: 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) > (Andy Davidson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0100 > From: "Erik Bais" <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy > Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) > To: <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$(a)a2b-internet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:58:40 +0000 > From: Andy Davidson <andy(a)nosignal.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow > IPv6 Transfers) > To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <20141109095830.GA31177(a)chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:05:49 +0000 > From: Andy Davidson <andy(a)nosignal.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS > Number Transfers) > To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <20141109100549.GB31177(a)chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> 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 > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > *************************************************

11 12

Just FYI
by Saeed Khademi 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Dear members, During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to our instructor ) there are some organizations having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request will not be processed by hostmaster. and here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assign… it is clearly mentioned that “Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned” Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with ASN, isn’t it a wrong doing? Kind Regards, Saeed.

4 4

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 Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '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 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. the changes make sense as far as I can see, supported from me. -- 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] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, 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 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. late but support from me -- 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] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region”)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, 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 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Unsure about those changes, can this cause issues similar to what Nick pointed out regard IX space? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-October/00925… -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

1 0

2014-04 timer update?
by Aleksi Suhonen 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Hello all, We recently modified the 2014-04 proposal to drop any and all IPv6 requirements from the last IPv4 assignment policy. Please indicate your support or lack there of for 2014-04 now. Also, could the chairs publicly declare which timer the 2014-04 proposal is on now and how much time is left before it advances? Yours sincerely, -- Aleksi Suhonen / You say "hot potato", I say "closest-exit."

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17
by Lu Heng 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Hi I think some people are off topic here, all I said was we should not treat v4 and v6 differently, that's it. If there are people like to treat two protocols differently, you are free to express your view. But anyway, this is really not a topic for this mailing list anyway, should we stop here?(if anyone interested we can start at IPv6 wg there) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, <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. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Hans Petter Holen) > 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Benedikt Stockebrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100 > From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <54648513.1020201(a)oslo.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > > address policy. > According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the > IPv6 wg. > > See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > > -- > Hans Petter Holen > Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 > From: Benedikt Stockebrand <bs(a)stepladder-it.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address > policy mailing lists] > To: Jen Linkova <furry13(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf(a)stepladder-it.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi folks, > > Jen Linkova <furry13(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> > wrote: > > [...] > >>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > >> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > > [...] > > There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to > > address policy. > > I fully agree with Jen here. > > If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and > video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I > don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. > > @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this > point? > > > Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a > > mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. > > [...] > > I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still > try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at > hand. > > In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list > obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a > decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. > > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something > similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at > the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4. > > > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, > > Thank you, Jen! > > As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't > generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are > others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the > address policy list. > > > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > > list untouched. > > So do I. > > \begin{wg-chair-mode} > To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step > approach: > > - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt > accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger > with the address policy WG list. > > - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the > address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) > discussions moving there. > > I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as > far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the > IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement > and assume the question settled. > \end{wg-chair-mode} > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > > -- > Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting > Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ > > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects > > BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17 > ************************************************* > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

1 0