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

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

If you have PI you should have agreement with your sponsoring LIR (or RIPE NCC) and with several providers (taking into consideration multihoming). If all of them (wrongly assumed as "either" by you) choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans won't work. What's the difference then with assigned PA block? Alexey Ivanov tried to say that there are several LIRs that are not providers and their MAIN business is provide numbers (IPs, ASns...). They are of the same reliability as sponsoring LIRs and won't leave you without their service, because they want your money. More than that - there MANY providers, LIRs, carriers... which gives you enormous possibilities to change any of the party without any problem. No business harm at all. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:40 PM To: Piotr Strzyzewski Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > Yes, you can. ;-) > > Please make your mind about your arguments. You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Nick, while there is no IP addresses some alternative is better than no alternative at all. You plan for the "may future" and forget about "need now". I don't see any problem with changing PA LIR in case of problems with old one (PI=small block), changing the transit provider for PI also need some DB work, new agreements with new providers and so on. The job has to be done and in modern situation there is no way out of this culprit. For the shining and undoubtful future - the only way is IPv6. Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:46 PM To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 13:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > /24 PA works excelent for multihome. I have a lot examples. I'm sure it does, until the day that the end user gets into contractual problems with the PA LIR and wants to move transit provider, but can't do so easily because they lose the addresses. PI == provider independent. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by George Giannousopoulos 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hello all, I agree that the three months limitation has to go.. However, I also believe that the period for allocations and assignments should be equal Best regards On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

3 2

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Last Call for Comments has ended. After the feedback received, a new draft (3.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community comments. The highlights of the changes in response of the community's request include: -use of the hyphen for "sub-domain". The Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to extend the Last Call period until 19 November 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this new version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 19 November 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Roger Jørgensen 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: <snip> > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. I support the proposal and the "fast-tracking" as discussed by others. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Tore Anderson 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

Hi, I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs. * Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. I have a small nit to pick with the impact analysis, which says: The allocation and assignment periods will no longer be three months. Said periods will become: [...] - For assignments: 24 months. That is not what the proposal says. It makes no mention of 24 months anywhere. What it does say, is: Assignments’ immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. Therefore, if the end user's usage is increasing exponentially over time, his maximum assignment period will be less than 24 months. On the other hand, if the end user's usage is increasing at a slower and slower pace over time, his maximum assignment period will be longer than 24 months. In any case, the text in question is the exact same as it used to be before Run Out Fairly was implemented. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

6 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012102901001081] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]
by James Blessing 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On 31 October 2012 10:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info(a)leadertelecom.ru> wrote: >> but the information about the transfers is derivable from the RIPE DB > > Yes, but this database too much ditry information and very difficult analyse > it. If you will secure something - you can place it in safe place, but more > effective way to put it in public with different information :-) So you are agreeing that publishing the information about transfers is a good idea to make it easier to see transfers being made? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

2 1

2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Emilio Madaio 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is no longer a future event. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-05 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The main changes in the new version are: -use of a bullet point layout for the proposal text; -anonymous reports of non-approved transfers. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 12 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

IGF session on IP address policy
by Milton L Mueller 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there will be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring a global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself and Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session discussion of the topic the next day. The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series of panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured, multi-stakeholder deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will test the extent to which the various stakeholders interested in that issue can come to agreement on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4 number resources. The five policy issues we will discuss are: the role of needs assessment in market trades; the status of legacy number block holders; the accuracy of post-transaction records; aggregation policies market power For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise position formulated on the spot. The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will facilitate remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US Eastern time, and 3 hours ahead of Continental European time. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

1 0