December 2016 - address-policy-wg

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition) You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 October 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

8 8

New on RIPE Labs: 15,000 LIRs
by Nick Hyrka 28 Dec '16

28 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Now that we've reached 15,000 LIRs, a new article on RIPE Labs looks at the growth of our membership and the impact this will have on the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/15-000-local-internet-registries Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, One of the RIPE 73 RACI fellows, Ioana Livadariu, presented an interesting study about the IPv4 transfer market at the RIPE Meeting in Madrid. She now published this study also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-the-ipv4-transfer-ma… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio). So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can’t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no “normative” issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let’s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi Leo, I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es" <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can´t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you’re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Responder a: <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 10