- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Alex Le Heux 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Hi Marco, The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite guidance from the RIPE communityŠ What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? There¹s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ³guided", from informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the articles of association, and many steps in between ;) Regards, Alex Le Heux On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >"Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. > > >Regards, > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Jul '14

10 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, 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. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Question about Last /8 Policy
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

Hi all, This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. If they dont need it anymore, it should be returned to RIPE. Only allowed transfers of /22 from last /8 should be: - When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now. This will help to dont especulate with the last /8 and will help slowing the depletion. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza(a)tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.

9 14

the solution to v4 runout?
by Jim Reid 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

I think this might be the answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28125336 Perhaps the RIRs could come up with a definition of "chores" that LIRs have to complete in order to get (time-limited?) use of a v4 address. :-)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
by Lu 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

Let's put it that way, it is over, so let it be it. Opening the pandora box won't changing the end results. Plus current /8 maybe able last long time-- in which is a good thing. Lu > On 2014年7月2日, at 下午12:00, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 2. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 4. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Jim Reid) > 5. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a > /8 I want to start this topic again. > And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 > IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > Please, comment it. > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know >> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP >> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... >> >> Regards, >> >> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>>> >>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>>> those >>>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >>> >>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gTQMS7nsq0JP3m=YawfFhOMYkaWAV1X17bh4W9vxkK9ZQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> Should be use the Available IP Pool >> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door > for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this > was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what > would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next > upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? > > Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to > undo this change. > > > Sorry, > Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca >> <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >>> Should be use the Available IP Pool >>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? >> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door >> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this >> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what >> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next >> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? >> >> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to >> undo this change. > I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with > only a /22). > I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have > Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 > enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, > etc.) dont support it. > Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for > possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since > transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it. > > I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if > one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have > 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help > on IPv6 deployment. > > To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something > similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 > > Regards, > >> >> Sorry, >> Richard > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <B485997B-74D9-402A-AFC8-A43A45A99717(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. > > I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. > > You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. > > To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Jim, > > You understandme wrong or I did not said it well. > Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer > to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, > IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack > or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4. > My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job > on IPv6 deployment. > > About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, > but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 > is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen > then. > > But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing > their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them > (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since > there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will > have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. > > A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in > expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the > time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. > > Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not > have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way > so you all can understand what Im trying to say. > > Regards, > > El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?: >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. >> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. >> >> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. >> >> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 > ************************************************

1 0

why-pi question still in request form after 2011-02 acceptance?
by Daniel Roesen 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

Hi, could someone explain the rationale that the "why-pi" question is still in the IPv6 PI request form? Given that since acceptance and implementation of 2011-02 there are no special requirements attached to IPv6 PI anymore (other than the bureaucracy), I see absolutely no point in having people explain "why PA address space cannot be used for this assignment". The obvious, totally acceptable yet completely superfluous answer would be "because PA is not provider independent". I'd suggest to simply remove this "why-pi" question from the request form and supporting notes. :-) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by Tore Anderson 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

* Marco Schmidt > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 2 July 2014. 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». 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.) 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. :-) 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. Tore

1 0

Going to last call: 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sander Steffann 17 Jun '14

17 Jun '14

Dear working group, The working group chairs have decided to send policy proposal 2014-01, Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4, to Last Call. During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: - Tore Anderson - Jan Ingvoldstad - Piotr Strzyzewski - Sascha Luck - Jens Ott - George Giannousopoulos - Andreas Larsen - Sebastian Wiesinger The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. The formal Last Call announcement will be sent to the appropriate lists by our incredibly helpful PDO, Marco Schmidt. Cheers, Gert and Sander Your APWG chairs

5 4

2014-01 Last Call for Comments (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 16 Jun '14

16 Jun '14

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2014-01, "Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 15 July 2014 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 15 July 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0