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

IP/ASNs for Governments BoF
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 07 May '18

07 May '18

Hi all, I'd like to call your attention to a BoF that was added to the schedule last week: IP/ASNs for Governments Iljitsch van Beijnum, Logius, Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations The purpose of this BoF is to discuss the needs of government and large organisations when it comes to IPv6 address allocations and ASN assignments. We will cover the ways in which RIPE Policies could be changed to better support these large entities that are often comprised of many independent sub-organisations with their own connections to the Internet. Please also note my (relatively) new affiliation. :-) However, I'm using my old email address here to avoid even more spam. The idea behind this BoF is that governments (and some other very large organizations) find it useful to number all their sub-organizations from a single large block, but these sub-organizations connect to the internet independently. We've done this with the Dutch government-wide IPv6 numbering plan, which provides IPv6 addresses to the national government, but also provinces and cities. In Germany there's also a similar IPv6 numbering plan. However, the RIPE policies don't fit this use case very well. We believe it would be useful to start a discussion with the community to see how this is best addressed. There's also some issues surrounding the use of public AS numbers for very large private networks. I haven't been on this list for a number of years, so if all of this has been discussed recently, my apologies. The full BoF proposal is here: https://ripe76.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/submissions/RIPE-76-IP-ASNs-for-… <https://ripe76.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/submissions/RIPE-76-IP-ASNs-for-…> Iljitsch van Beijnum

2 2

WG chair change
by Gert Doering 07 May '18

07 May '18

Dear AP WG, as announced, my co-chairs of amazingly many years, Sander Steffann, will be stepping down as a WG chair at the next RIPE meeting. Our WG chair selection policy is described here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… according to this, we'll spend a few minutes at the next APWG session in Marseilles to select a new co-chair. To avoid lengthy rounds of introduction at the meeting, I want to ask for volunteers here on the list - please step forward if you want to take up this work, and introduce yourself on why you think you're a good candidate and what your plans for the WG are for the next two years (or longer). A short recap of the WG chairs duties: - chair the APWG session at the RIPE meetings (so generally it is expected that both co-chairs can attend most RIPE meetings and feel halfway confident talking on stage and moderate a discussion) - read - and if necessary, moderate - the APWG mailing list (thus, fluency in written English is necessary, and while discussions are going on, some amount time spent at least every few days) - help policy proposers bring their policy proposal through the PDP (answering questions, helping with the wording of proposed text, spending some time discussing 'next steps' for a proposal) - judge consensus at the end of discussion and review phases according to our policy development process (usually done by both co-chairs together, unless a conflict of interest appears) - help shape the format of RIPE meetings together with all the other WG chairs and the RIPE PC - by mailing list and by attending the "WG chair lunch" on RIPE meeting Thursdays - see also: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 A definite plus for an APWG chair is "operational experience with these pesky numbers" - either by operating the address management side (LIR) of an Internet Service Provider or Enterprise network, or by being an address broker, etc. Sander and I have spoken to a few of you who would make good chairs already - but ultimately, it's up the working group to decide. So even if you have spoken to us privately before, please speak up now. So, come forward, dear candidates and make yourself known! :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

4 5

WG Chair selection
by Paul Hoogsteder 06 May '18

06 May '18

Hello AP-WG, I don't think I've seen any support for either candidate for the position of WG chair on the list yet. I think Erik Bais is more than qualified for such a position, he's been active in the RIPE community and this working group for years and has made many valuable contributions. +many for Erik! Best regards, Paul Hoogsteder Meanie AS31019 Breedband Delft AS34108

13 12

inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 04 May '18

04 May '18

Hi all, As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. I'm considering submitting a policy proposal in each RIR (RIPE, AfriNIC, LACNIC, APNIC), for that, but I will like to get some inputs before, and "sense" the feeling about that of the participants. Note that in the case of RIPE, we have a big difference with the other RIRs, because all them start with /32, while we updated our policy several years ago (because 6rd deployment), to allocated /29. This means that if we go for this policy, it will be justified to "upgrade" all the /29 allocations to a /28. This is the example that Owen sent to the AfriNIC list: 1. Figure out the number of end sites you expect to serve in your largest aggregation point in 3-5 years. 2. Round that to a nibble boundary (with a 25% minimum free space) (1-12 end sites = 4 bits, 13-192 end sites = 8 bits. 193-3,072 end sites = 12 bits, 3,073-49,152 end sites = 16 bits, 49,153-786,432 = 20 bits, etc.)… Call this E. 3. Figure out the number of aggregation points you expect to have in 3-5 years. Round that up to a nibble boundary with a 25% minimum free space (same as in step 2). Call this A. 4. 48-(A+E) = prefix size. Example: An ISP has 42,000 customers in it’s largest end site. It has 128 end sites. E = 16, A = 8, 48-(16+8) = 48-(24) = 24, this ISP should get a /24. So, would you agree in doing something on this line? Thanks in advance for any inputs! 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 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

2018-03 New Policy Proposal (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-03, "Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to fix outdated information in the RIPE Policy "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

4 3

2018-04 New Proposal (PDP Clarification) to be discussed on RIPE Discussion Mailing List
by Marco Schmidt 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE proposal, 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" has been published on the RIPE Discussion mailing list for discussion. This proposal aims to clarify the options available to the WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). Please note that since changes to the PDP can affect all RIPE Working Groups, the RIPE Chair decided to discuss this proposal on the RIPE Discussion mailing list. The RIPE Chair will also moderate the proposal discussion. We wanted to notify the Address Policy Working Group in particular, as most of the policy proposals are discussed here. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and join the discussion on the RIPE Discussion mailing list (ripe-list(a)ripe.net). Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Agenda for APWG at RIPE 76 in Marseille
by Sander Steffann 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Marseille in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 16, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 16, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. Regards, Gert Döring & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection - longest-serving chair (Sander Steffann) stepping down - Sander is not volunteering for another term, so we'll select a new co-chair C. The role and function of the ASO within ICANN Public consultation, Axel Pawlik D. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE 75 - brief overview of new proposals (if any) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back E. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy Jordi Palet Martinez / Erik Bais / Juri Bogdanov 2018-02 "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" Jordi Palet Martinez / Erik Bais 2018-03 Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy Andrea Cima Y. Open Policy Hour The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity. Z. AOB

2 3

2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-02, "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to clarify the definition of “Assign” in ripe-699 (section 2.6). The non-permanent provision of up to a /64 prefix to third parties shall not be considered a sub-assignment. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-02 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

5 8

Proposal Implemented: 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification"
by Marco Schmidt 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification". The policy change re-defined the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. The provision of separate addresses (/128) to customers of the assignment holder will not be considered a sub-assignment. More information, especially for IPv6 PI assignments, can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/ipv6 The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699 Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

RIPE 75 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 12 Apr '18

12 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 75 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-75-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8
by Janos Zsako 02 Apr '18

02 Apr '18

Dear all, Several existing and potential LIRs have complained about the fact that a /22 may not be enough for starting an Internet service. While there is a general agreement that this allocation size should not be changed during the last /8 policy, it may be useful to make some exceptions in some properly justified cases. There is also a general agreement that people should take care of their health, they should eat healthy food and do sufficient physical exercise, possibly by going regularly to the gym. I have thought of a possibility to allocate up to a /20 from the last /8 pool to the companies that can prove that they encourage and help their employees to take care of their help, and that the employees themselves do take advantage of these possibilities. I already have a couple of initial suggestions for consideration, like the average number of hours of workout per employee per week, the average Body Mass Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index) per employee, and a couple of similar good ways of measuring the health status at the company. I also though that computing a simple average may disadvantage larger companies, therefore some formula taking into account the size of the different departments and the values measured there could be worked out, similar to the HD ratio used in determining the address utilisation (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699#hd_ratio). This could make the proposal more fair to large enterprises. There is, however, quite some work to be done to make these ideas properly implementable. I think we should set up a small task force to determine the criteria such LIRs should meet. The time is pressing, we have to act quickly in order to be able to discuss the proposal in Marseilles. Anyone who volunteers for the Task Force should contact me ASAP. We can then come up with a formal proposal and present it to the working group, by following the formal steps of the PDP. I am looking forward to being contacted by the volunteers. Best regards, Janos PS: I am sure some people, when they hear about a new policy proposal for IPv4, they will come up with the usual argument that this is like arranging the deck chairs again. I have to mention, however, that the latest scientific research proved that the sinking of the Titanic could have been delayed by several hours if the deck chairs were properly arranged in due time. Therefore, this proposal may also contribute to a better Internet on the long run. PS2: To those who had the patience to read this e-mail I wish a Happy 1 April!

5 4

LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
by Marco Schmidt 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. You can find more on the global policy development process here: https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

12 17

(no subject)
by Christopher Hardwick 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

What do you mean addres policy iv got alout to deal with and hundredes of documents to sighn send me the name of the policy you need

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) (fwd)
by Carlos Friaças 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Greetings, Jordi, thanks for this work (and the diffchecker really helps!) :-) This seems to be the simplest approach (organisation=LIR). I don't believe we should keep the less explicit wording on the policy, thus i support this proposal. Best Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:05:18 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-) Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48 Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> CC: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** 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

2016-04 Proposal Accepted (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification". The goal of this proposal was to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 The new RIPE Document is ripe-699 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699 We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

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

Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018)
by Shijia Pan 08 Mar '18

08 Mar '18

[Apologies if you got multiple copies of this email.] =================================================================== Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) **** ACM SenSys 2018 **** Shenzhen, China November 4-7, 2018 http://sensys.acm.org/2018/ Dear Colleagues, The ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) is the premier computer systems conference focused on the architecture, design, implementation, and performance of networked sensing systems, sensor-oriented data modeling, and analytics, in addition to sensor-enabled applications. ACM SenSys brings together academic, industry, and government professionals to a single-track, highly selective forum, that takes a broad view on the areas of computing that are relevant to the future of sensor systems. Topics of interests include, but are not limited to, the following: - New platforms and hardware designs for networked sensor systems - Systems software, including operating systems and network stacks - Low power operation, energy harvesting, and energy management - Applications, and deployment experiences (such as smart cities, wellness and healthcare sensing, and industrial process monitoring) - Resource-efficient machine learning for embedded and mobile platforms - Wireless media access control, network, and transport-layer protocol designs - New communication paradigms for ubiquitous connectivity - Innovations in learning algorithms and models for sensor perception and understanding - Mobile and pervasive systems, including personal wearable devices, drones, and robots - Sensing, actuation, and control - System services such as time and location estimation - Data management and analytics, including quality, integrity, and trustworthiness - Learning, adaptation, and autonomy in cyber-physical systems - Heterogeneous collaborative sensing, including human-robot sensor systems - Fault-tolerance, reliability, and verification - Security and privacy in sensor-enabled applications and systems We invite technical papers describing original ideas, ground-breaking results, and real-world experiences involving innovative sensor systems. Successful submissions will explain why the topic is relevant to a vision of the future of sensing systems. Submissions will be judged on originality, significance, clarity, relevance, and correctness. In addition to citing relevant, published work, authors must cite and relate their submissions to relevant prior publications of their own. Ethical approval for experiments with human subjects should be demonstrated as part of the submission. **** Important Dates **** - Paper Registration and Abstract: April 1, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Submission Deadline: April 8, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Notification of Paper Acceptance: July 20, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Acceptance Notification: 20th July 2018 GMT. - Camera-Ready Deadline: 20th Sept 2018 GMT. Note: These are hard deadlines. No extension will be granted. For detailed information about the program and submission guideline, please visit http://sensys.acm.org/2018/. **************************************** General Chairs: Lin Zhang (Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute), Pei Zhang (Carnegie Mellon University) Program Chairs: Tian He (University of Minnesota), Nic Lane (University of Oxford) ****************************************

1 0

Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018)
by Shijia Pan 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

[Apologies if you got multiple copies of this email.] =================================================================== Call for Papers: The 2018 ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) **** ACM SenSys 2018 **** Shenzhen, China November 4-7, 2018 http://sensys.acm.org/2018/ Dear Colleagues, The ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2018) is the premier computer systems conference focused on the architecture, design, implementation, and performance of networked sensing systems, sensor-oriented data modeling, and analytics, in addition to sensor-enabled applications. ACM SenSys brings together academic, industry, and government professionals to a single-track, highly selective forum, that takes a broad view on the areas of computing that are relevant to the future of sensor systems. Topics of interests include, but are not limited to, the following: - New platforms and hardware designs for networked sensor systems - Systems software, including operating systems and network stacks - Low power operation, energy harvesting, and energy management - Applications, and deployment experiences (such as smart cities, wellness and healthcare sensing, and industrial process monitoring) - Resource-efficient machine learning for embedded and mobile platforms - Wireless media access control, network, and transport-layer protocol designs - New communication paradigms for ubiquitous connectivity - Innovations in learning algorithms and models for sensor perception and understanding - Mobile and pervasive systems, including personal wearable devices, drones, and robots - Sensing, actuation, and control - System services such as time and location estimation - Data management and analytics, including quality, integrity, and trustworthiness - Learning, adaptation, and autonomy in cyber-physical systems - Heterogeneous collaborative sensing, including human-robot sensor systems - Fault-tolerance, reliability, and verification - Security and privacy in sensor-enabled applications and systems We invite technical papers describing original ideas, ground-breaking results, and real-world experiences involving innovative sensor systems. Successful submissions will explain why the topic is relevant to a vision of the future of sensing systems. Submissions will be judged on originality, significance, clarity, relevance, and correctness. In addition to citing relevant, published work, authors must cite and relate their submissions to relevant prior publications of their own. Ethical approval for experiments with human subjects should be demonstrated as part of the submission. **** Important Dates **** - Paper Registration and Abstract: April 1, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Submission Deadline: April 8, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Notification of Paper Acceptance: July 20, 2018, 11:59 PM GMT. - Paper Acceptance Notification: 20th July 2018 GMT. - Camera-Ready Deadline: 20th Sept 2018 GMT. Note: These are hard deadlines. No extension will be granted. For detailed information about the program and submission guideline, please visit http://sensys.acm.org/2018/. **************************************** General Chairs: Lin Zhang (Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute), Pei Zhang (Carnegie Mellon University) Program Chairs: Tian He (University of Minnesota), Nic Lane (University of Oxford) ****************************************

1 0

[CFP] 2nd Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking (APNet 2018)
by ap net 22 Feb '18

22 Feb '18

************************************************************ ****************** CALL FOR PAPERS APNet 2018 The Second Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking Beijing, China, August 2--3, 2018 *https://conferences.sigcomm.org/events/apnet2018/index.html <https://conferences.sigcomm.org/events/apnet2018/index.html>* ************************************************************ ****************** *Overview* The Second Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking (APNet’18) aims to bring together the very best researchers in computer networking and systems across the Asia-Pacific region and the global community to a live forum discussing and debating innovative ideas at their early stages. The mission of APNet is that promising but not-yet-mature ideas can receive timely feedback from experienced researchers, shaping them into major conferences such as SIGCOMM, NSDI, SOSP, OSDI, MobiCom, CoNEXT and so on. *Program Committee* *General Chairs* Dan Li (Tsinghua University, China) K. K. Ramakrishnan (University of California, Riverside, USA) *PC Co-Chairs* Mosharaf Chowdhury (University of Michigan, USA) Kun Tan (Huawei, China) *Steering Committee* Suman Banerjee (University of Wisconsin, USA) Kai Chen (HKUST, Hong Kong SAR), Co-Chair Albert Greenberg (Microsoft, USA) Jitu Padhye (Microsoft, USA) KyoungSoo Park (KAIST, South Korea) Kun Tan (Huawei, China), Co-Chair Minlan Yu (Yale University, USA) Lin Zhong (Rice University, USA) ********************************************************** We invite submissions of short papers (up to 6 pages, including references) on a wide range of networking research, including, but not limited to: • Network architectures and algorithms • Cloud and wide-area networking systems & infrastructure • Networking support for applications • Operating system support for networking • Kernel-bypass and RDMA networking and applications • Enterprise, datacenter, and storage area networks • SDN, NFV, and network programming • Networking hardware design • Network measurement, monitoring, diagnosis, and operations • Formal methods and network verification • Network security and privacy, censorship, transparency • Network, transport, and application-layer protocols • Resource management, QoS, and signaling • Routing, traffic engineering, switching, and addressing • Wireless, mobile, and sensor networking The APNet Program Committee will select papers based on novelty, significance, and technical merit, rather than completeness. Innovative well-reasoned ideas with preliminary evaluations will suffice for APNet. Accepted papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library. We hope that the extension of APNet papers, when substantiated by solid implementation and experimentation, can be published at the aforementioned premier conferences. *Important Dates* Abstract registration: April 6, 2018 (11:59 GMT) Paper submission: April 13, 2018 (11:59 PM GMT) Notification of decision: June 11, 2018 Camera-ready date: June 25, 2018 ================================================ We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this CFPs. We appreciate your help to forward this CFPs to your friends & email lists. ================================================ __________________ *Publicity Co-Chair* Chen Qian Assistant Professor Department of Computer Engineering Jack Baskin School of Engineering University of California Santa Cruz

2 1

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC Members and Resources in 2017
by Mirjam Kuehne 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, In this new article on RIPE Labs we're looking at membership developments over the previous year. How many new LIRs opened, and is this consistent with our earlier projections? How much longer will IPv4 last? And what about IPv6 uptake? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ripe-ncc-members-and-resources-in-2017 Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

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