July 2015 - address-policy-wg

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-13, "Allow AS Number Transfers"
by Nikolas Pediaditis 22 Jul '15

22 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-13, "Allow AS Number Transfers”. In accordance with the new policy, any holder of Autonomous System (AS) Numbers is allowed to re-assign AS Numbers that were previously assigned to them by the RIPE NCC The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-13 The updated RIPE Document, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-638 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers"
by Nikolas Pediaditis 22 Jul '15

22 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers". In accordance with the new policy, 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. Please note that blocks being transferred must not be smaller than the minimum allocation/assignment size at the time of the transfer: - For IPv6 allocations this is currently a /32 - For IPv6 PI assignments this is currently a /48 The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 The updated RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-641 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Mathew Newton 17 Jul '15

17 Jul '15

Hi Marco, > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-announce [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Marco Schmidt > Sent: 09 July 2015 13:20 > The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2015-03, > "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size", has now been > published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Thank you to you and colleagues for this. It can't have been the easiest analysis to undertake, not least given the multiple aspects to consider. It is clear however that a great deal of thought and consideration has gone into it. I need to take some time to fully consider all of the detail however my initial view of the interpretation and proposed implementation is very positive. Could I possibly seek some clarification on the following sentence from the second-to-last paragraph of Section A? 'Each assignment will be taken into account only once towards the total count of needed IPv6 space for an organisation and will not be multiplied by the times it is encapsulated in higher addressing plan levels.' Whilst I don't have a specific concern, and it may well be an insignificant statement, I thought it worthwhile double-checking what this means? Regards, Mathew

3 2

Opposing policy 2015-01
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jul '15

12 Jul '15

Dear Garry If you read my previous messages you can find my solution. We have to discuss about accepting this proposals or not. We will talk about other solutions in other proposals. -- Shahin Gharghi

16 47

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 47, Issue 9
by Shahin Gharghi 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

Hi > I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case. > The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase... -- Shahin Gharghi

3 3

2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Shahin Gharghi 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

Hi +1 to 2015-03 proposal. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

PA policy
by Kennedy, James 08 Jul '15

08 Jul '15

Hello, At the risk of sounding naïve, I have a question regarding the legitimate usage of PA address space. That is, what *type* of network or End User can it be assigned to. "LIRs are allocated Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space. They sub-allocate and assign this to *downstream networks*." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#7 To me this reads networks or End Users assigned PA space must receive transit from the LIR holding the parent allocation. Or can the LIR assign PA blocks to customers/companies that don't receive transit, or any other technical network service for that matter, from the LIR? Regards, James

8 17

2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

22 21

"ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED"
by Enno Rey 02 Jul '15

02 Jul '15

Hi, some of you might already cringe just from this mail's subject ;-) I'm currently involved in handling some netblocks which are in "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" state and this turns out to be surprisingly difficult, even in cases where both organizations (that is the LIR holding the covering aggregate and the organization which received the "more specific" PI assignment back in the 90s) apparently agree on a course of action. My impression is that these difficulties not least arise as seemingly no policy exists on "how to convert those assignments into 'ASSIGNED PI' or 'ALLOCATED PA' space". I'm aware that these netblocks might only be "remnant corner cases" totally irrelevant to the majority of the community. Which brings me to the following questions: a) do any of you "feel the same pain" when it comes to these blocks? b) do you think a policy proposal should be prepared how to handle those? I'm willing to prepare sth. c) what could such a proposal look like? What do those concerned think how a reasonable way of moving those blocks into a "stable state" can be identified/described. many thanks in advance for any type of feedback. everybody have a pleasant evening Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================

2 1

ARIN reaches depletion
by Nick Hilliard 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

https://www.arin.net/announcements/2015/20150701.html Nick

1 0