January 2018 - address-policy-wg

2016-04 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 13 February 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 February 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2

New on RIPE Labs: A Shrinking Pie? The IPv4 Transfer Market in 2017
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, A record number of IPv4 addresses were transferred between LIRs in the RIPE NCC service region in 2017. However, 16 of the largest transfers, amounting to 78% of the total transferred address space, were really about the administrative management of resources between related business units. In terms of buyers and sellers, this part of the IPv4 transfer market decreased in size last year. Please find a more detailed analysis on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/a-shrinking-pie-the-ipv4-transfer-mar… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase. The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. This proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - the scope is extended to all IPv6 assignments - it defines that the provision of separate IPv6 addresses is not considered a sub-assignment The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2017. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

24 103

inconsistency in 2016-04
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

(sorry Jim ! subject replaced) Hi Sander, Below in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:13 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean Hi, > 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data centers? Indeed, this is what I asked Marco. > 2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy? Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple addresses out of that prefix (so we allow VMs in the device also) The policy talks about single-address increments. It doesn't say "one address", it says "separate addresses" (plural), which allows for privacy extensions etc. Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities." > 3) Can the device use any technology (such as prefix sharing, eg. RFC7278), to also use addresses from a single prefix for other devices (same user) Technology used is out of scope here. I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco. Cheers, Sander ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

4 6

policy text or anything else?
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Hi all, I've changed the subject, because I want to talk here in general about our policy process, not any specific policy. I've tried to find where in our process, states that in addition to the policy text itself, other inputs during the PDP matter. If there is such confirmation, could the NCC tell me how to find it? I understand that this may have been our "practice", but maybe we did wrong. Let me explain why I think is wrong, and consequently we need to correct it. Let's suppose I'm an organization asking for the first time IPv6 space, I will find the actual policy at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684 I read across it, and I obviously will decide, based on my needs what choices I've to apply for. I've not followed the PDP since the first time we discussed an IPv6 policy, so I'm missing all the policy proposals text, arguments, rationales, impact analysis, etc. Because that, I'm applying with a different view from someone that has been for ages in the addressing policy list and following it, and possible not taking advantages of perspectives that are "in between lines" in the policy text, which may make a huge difference on my request vs a "follower" of the PDP. I would agree with that (using not only the policy text, but also all the PDP documents) IF when I go to the ripe-684 document, I've direct links in every section of the policy text, pointing to the PDP documents that have been used to modify that section. I hope everybody understand what I mean, not sure if is so easy to explain. Now, is that realistic? It will make our policy text so difficult to read ... and a very very very long (and always increasing) document. So, my conclusion: what it matters is only policy text, other documents are relevant to explain it, but not to add "modifications" to the reading of that text so not conflicts should be there (unless undiscovered). I agree that we are humans and we can make mistakes, and we may need to go to new rounds of PDP to correct that, new proposals, or whatever, but even if it takes some extra work, policy text must be refined if discrepancies are perceived. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> Fecha: martes, 16 de enero de 2018, 16:05 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) Dear Max, On 2018-01-15 18:23:42 CET, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote: > As said before somewhere (I'm not sure wether on a RIPE meeting or > here on the list), the RS folks said, that they use the proposal text > as well as the summary/rationale as guidance what is allowed and what > isn't. > > Maybe Ingrid, Andrea, Marco, * from the NCC can comment on that? > Yes, this is correct. Whenever there is a question about the interpretation of RIPE Policies, we can refer to proposal summary as well to the impact analysis to ensure the correct understanding of the policy and its intent. Kind 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04 (was: what does consensus mean)
by Sander Steffann 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Hi Jim, > PLEASE put those comments in a different thread which makes it clear you're discussing detail about 2016-4 (or whatever). Thanks. > > This thread's supposed to be about an entirely different topic. Indeed, my apologies. There were so many things going on that I lost track as well :) Cheers, Sander

1 0

permanently % denied
by Patrick Schauer 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Why your service blocked many of my customers? how can we delete your entries? Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0