March 2016 - address-policy-wg

2015-05: Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by Denis Fondras 29 Mar '16

29 Mar '16

Hello, A few comment about this draft : - "1. The size of the allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." may be reworded as "1. The size of the initial allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." - "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry." may be reworded as "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry in the last 18 months."

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Erik Bais 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

Hi, As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons are discussed. Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook ( with no hats ) that there might be some future issue on similar policy changes that might provide a policy issue as the previous version of the draft had. While I understand his line of thinking, I dont think that we give the legal team enough credit to spot future issues similar as the one in the past draft.. I like to think there is a learning curve And I will also invite Remco to keep reading future policy proposals from myself and others to make sure that there arent any un-intentional issues that might be introduced in future policy. Having said that, he also stated that there is currently nothing wrong with the version at the table. On the final remark of Remco, if we need to see if we need to review the actual current structure of the policies.. I agree and I would like to have a good discussion on that. But that is to me a discussion outside the scope of this policy proposal. On the suggestion of Remco and second by Tore (also with no hats), Tore wrote : > Remco suggested adding references to the new policy document in lieu of > the removed sections in ripe-638, ripe-649, and ripe-655. I would not > object to that. This was later also agreed to by a (+1) from Sascha Luck (also without any hats), Guy Chilton (Again .. no hats..) And if we agree that the blunt removal of the transfer text in the current affected policies and having a single transfer document isn't clear enough, I'm not against adding a reference to the new proposed transfer policy document. The only response opposing to the current structure is Peter Koch. Peter stated that he is : > "Generally I'm always nervous when policy/legislation is > "streamlined" by "just editorial changes", and also recent experience here > would suggest extreme caution. Things get complicated when they are > taken out of their respective context (tempus and locus)." And I agree partially with him. Doing things with caution is something that we are all part of here.. And I think that we have proven that we are very careful on making certain changes. The biggest change here is indeed the editorial one, however that is to avoid in doing large changes while also doing editorial changes .. it was clear to everyone that the editorial changes was desired by the majority of the community when the initial changes / transfer policy text was written into the policies.. and this was the 'clean-up and stream-line action.' > At least, the work is incomplete as proposed now, simply because the > affected policies will have to be re-published with a new number and timestamp, > so the (outdated) references will have to be adjusted (this includes > evaluation and thus is more than a simple editorial change) and now > obsolete text ought to be dealt with accordingly. The necessity to > add normative references to a new omnibus document has already been mentioned. I'm reading this that Peter could live with the suggestion done by Remco for the references.. if we are going that route.. And from what I've heard, a change like Remco suggested, would not require a complete rehash into the PDP or redoing any phases again. I hope that with the current summary I have given a quick view of where I think we are ... And if Sander and Gert don't mind, I would like to ask to extend the discussion period for 2 weeks to allow for additional comments on this email and perhaps other insights. Regards, Erik Bais Author of 2015-04 ... aka ... The mad hatter ...

4 4

New and Improved IPv4 Address Space Chart
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '16

10 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, During policy discussions, we often see people asking how long the RIPE NCC’s available IPv4 pool will last. This is a good question, as more than three years after the last /8 policy was activated, we still have almost an entire /8 still remaining in our pool. This is made more confusing by the regular allocations we have been receiving from IANA since 2014, which have been counteracting the reduction in addresses that we should have seen due to /22 allocations. To more accurately show the status of our remaining pool, we have updated our IPv4 Address Space Chart, which you can find here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhausti… The updated chart makes the distinction between addresses from the last /8, and addresses that were received from IANA’s Recovered IPv4 Pool (as well as addresses recovered from our service region). We have also published a short article on RIPE Labs with some additional detail about our IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-las… We hope this will help to inform the community’s policy discussions. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

2015-04 Review Period extended until 22 March 2016 (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" has been extended until 22 March 2016. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 You can find a summary of the current proposal discussion at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-March/010966… 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

2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 01 Mar '16

01 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 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 2.0 include: - clarification in the policy text about entities that can receive a transfer - further clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding the 24-month holding period for scarce resources 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 3 March 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 13