September 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

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] 2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Erik Bais 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Hi Marco, Thank you for assistance and processing. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: dinsdag 30 september 2014 13:55 Aan: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Onderwerp: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-622, "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: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-623 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We will create new internal and external procedures, and related tools and documentation, to ensure the correct processing of IPv4 PI transfers. We estimate it will take about two months to fully implement the policy proposal. Once the implementation is complete, we will make another announcement and the transfer of IPv4 PI assignments will then be possible. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-622, "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: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-623 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We will create new internal and external procedures, and related tools and documentation, to ensure the correct processing of IPv4 PI transfers. We estimate it will take about two months to fully implement the policy proposal. Once the implementation is complete, we will make another announcement and the transfer of IPv4 PI assignments will then be possible. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Moving "2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)" to Last Call
by Gert Doering 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Dear Address Policy 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. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 August 2014. The review phase for 2014-02 has ended. Given the amount of support, the WG chairs have decided that we have reached consensus. We think that all points brought up by the opposers have been sufficiently discussed - this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. This is what we'll do now -> move 2014-02 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that tomorrow or Wednesday. For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is what the chairs based their decision on. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair Review Phase, starting July 10, 2014 Support: Tore Anderson Sonderegger Olaf Andre Keller Scott Leibrand Elvis Velea Donal Cunningham Juan P. Cerezo Daniel Suchy Piotr.Strzyzewski Larisa Yurkina Hamed Shafaghi Questions: George Giannousopoulos (neutral) Opposing: Aleksei Ivanov (LeaderTelecom), main reason seems to be pricing some discussion, after clarification that APWG cannot directly influence pricing, opposition wasn't kept up In Discussion with Alexsei, without voicing a clear pro/contra statement, mainly about pricing for LIR account, PI, ... Erik Bais Andrzej Dopiera??a Andrei Kushnireuski Jens Ott

1 1

2014-04 Review Period extended until 6 October 2014 (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 has been extended until 6 October 2014. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 18 Sep '14

18 Sep '14

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:56:23 +1000 From: Elvis Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> 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: <5418EA47.8080307(a)velea.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis ----- Hi Elvis - RIPE NCC is conducting impact analysis at this time. Once this is complete, review phase will start. Best Sandra ------

2 1

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