July 2014 - address-policy-wg

2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 17 Sep '14

17 Sep '14

Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108(a)fud.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I can see no reason to not do this. With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a transfer involving a "needy" RIR. I have some comments/suggested improvements though: 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the resource-specific policy would allow for that. Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 section 5.5: ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR. When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the sending RIR.? These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? This statement seems out of place to me: * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a completely nonsensical outcome. IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because it already does just that. :-) *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you say. *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to *** me. Sandra So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for *** your support for the intent. *** Sandra Tore End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 *************************************************

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Gert Doering 09 Aug '14

09 Aug '14

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" 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/2014-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. So, tell me your thoughts, please. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair 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

15 26

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Axel Pawlik 06 Aug '14

06 Aug '14

On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? Max, all, the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation provided by our members. This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national authority the member chooses. cheers, Axel

22 42

2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

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

1 0

Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has the right to be contractually engaged with and to provide services to any legal entity, unless there are restrictions by law. Currently, Dutch law does not restrict our contractual engagement with, or provision of our services to, legal entities in Crimea. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27
by Lu 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. 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7月29日, at 下午6:00, 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. Re: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A(a)bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Hi at all I also support the policy change. Best regards, Olaf (OLAF4-RIPE)

1 0

2014-01 Proposal Accepted (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-621 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-621 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We estimate it may take a few weeks to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers
by Max Tulyev 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello All, don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly touches IP/ASN management, of course. Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why?

5 6

Consensus after Last Call on 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sander Steffann 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello working group, As per the RIPE PDP in ripe-614 the decision whether a proposal has reached consensus is now done by the working group chairs of the WG that discussed the proposal. We will give an overview of what occurred in the working group and explain how we came to our conclusions based on that. When this proposal went from Review phase to Last Call this was based on this analysis by the working group chairs: > During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. > > After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: > - Tore Anderson > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Piotr Strzyzewski > - Sascha Luck > - Jens Ott > - George Giannousopoulos > - Andreas Larsen > - Sebastian Wiesinger > > The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. During Last Call four more people stated their clear support (on 16 and 17 June) - Elvis Daniel Velea (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Erik Bais (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Janos Zsako (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Daniel Stolpe There were no other postings during Last Calls. Based on the comments received in review and last call phase, we have decided that consensus has indeed been reached. We therefore ask the RIPE NCC to implement this policy. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Your working group chairs, Gert Döring and Sander Steffann

1 0