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

2016-05 Proposal Accepted (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies". This policy change matches the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. In addition to the existing justification based on past utilisation, it is now also possible to document new needs, including the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of the allocation. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 The new RIPE Document is ripe-684 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684 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

2016-05 Last Call for Comments (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. 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 28 March 2017 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/2016-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers
by fransossen＠yahoo.com 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi, Good plan. Will there be any measures put in place so that mass clean ups like that won't be needed? Meaning catching them earlier on in the process. In the internal processing side, will the RIPE NCC flag the ASNs that are justifiably not publicly visible. So that they don't get asked the same question every couple of months? Cheers, David -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 3/23/17, Laurens Hoogendoorn <Laurens.Hoogendoorn(a)ripe.net> wrote: Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017, 12:18 PM Dear colleagues, As previously mentioned at RIPE 73, we are planning a project to clean up unused AS Numbers. You can find this presentation here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1456/ According to ripe-679, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" if an organisation no longer uses as AS Number, it should be returned to the free pool so it can be reassigned: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679 There are currently around 6,600 ASNs in our service region (held or sponsored by 2,682 LIRs) that are not being advertised in the routing system. This represents around 22% of the ~30,000 ASNs assigned by the RIPE NCC. There are a number of legitimate reasons why an ASN might not be advertised in the routing system. However, it is also possible that the holder doesn't exist anymore or the ASN is no longer needed. Not only should unused ASNs be returned, but it's important to clean up out of date registrations, which affect the quality of data in the RIPE Registry. Our Proposal We plan to email the LIR or sponsoring LIR for each unannounced ASN and ask if the resource is still needed. We will group together ASNs that are sponsored or held by the same LIR to minimise the number of emails. We will ask if the ASN is currently being used or if there are plans to start using the ASN in the coming three months. Organisations can always request a new ASN in the future if they need one. If we do not receive a reply or if the ASN will not be used within three months, we will start the process of returning the ASN to the free pool. The deregistration process will take three months, during which time the LIR can still indicate that the ASN is needed. If the ASN is still needed, the validity of the assignment (such as the multihoming requirement) will not be re-evaluated. We do not expect any significant cost or impact on other services, as most of this process will be automated and we will not need to re-evaluate the assignments. Contacting all relevant LIRs will take less than six months. Please review this proposal and send any comments or other feedback before Thursday 6 April to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Laurens Hoogendoorn Registration Services RIPE NCC

13 19

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers
by fransossen＠yahoo.com 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

The every couple of months thing is the problem. I actually see no reason in asking again other than when the LIR gets ARC'ed. Having a fee would also had help prune off some of the dead ASNs. Cheers, David -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 3/23/17, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers To: fransossen(a)yahoo.com Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017, 4:35 PM Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:53:27PM +0000, fransossen(a)yahoo.com wrote: > In the internal processing side, will the RIPE NCC flag the ASNs that are justifiably not publicly visible. > So that they don't get asked the same question every couple of months? Well, if they keep being not publically visible, maybe they *should* be asked regularily if they are *still* in use? For the same reason we're asking today - setups have changed, people and companies cease to exist, stuff starts being no longer used. (I wouldn't ask "every couple of months", though, maybe "every few years" - but that's for the community to decide, in the end) 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

1 0

RIPE 74 APWG agenda, draft 0.1
by Gert Doering 20 Mar '17

20 Mar '17

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Budapest in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 10, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 10, 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. Depending on the amount of "not yet known" things to show up on the agenda, we might only need one time slot. In which case, we can all join the Connect WG for a change :-) regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection 10 min - longest-serving chair (Gert Döring) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - 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 72 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 25 min (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 20 min (more specifically: presentation on the status of the open policy proposals and Q&A, discussion will take place on the list) 2016-04 IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification Maximilian Wilhelm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back Y. Open Policy Hour 5 min 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 -- 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

1 0

2015-04 Proposal Accepted (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 16 Mar '17

16 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies". This policy change created a single policy document with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The policy change also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 The new RIPE Document is ripe-682, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682 The following RIPE policies haven been updated as well and received a new document number: ripe-679, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679 ripe-680, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-680 ripe-681, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-681 The following RIPE policy has been marked as obsolete and replaced by ripe-682: ripe-644, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" We estimate that this proposal will take around three months to fully implement. In order to ensure a correct and consistent handling of requests, the current procedures remain in place until the implementation is completed. This applies in particular to transfers of IPv4 and 16-bit ASNs. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/policy-impleme… 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

2 1

WG chair rotation - call for volunteers
by Sander Steffann 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

Hello working group, As per the WG chair policy we gave us, the WG chairs are appointed for a two year duty, and then have to step down (and can be re-appointed). https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… It is Gert's turn to step down, and he has announced he will do this at the upcoming RIPE meeting. This means we have an empty position and are looking for volunteers to step forward. The job description and responsibilities are documented in https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542. Gert has indicated that he is volunteering to serve another term, so we already have one candidate for the empty position. But don't let that deter you from volunteering! If you have any questions about what it means to be a working group chair then please contact us and we'll prepare you as good as we can. And if you want to volunteer and be eligible for selection at the upcoming RIPE meeting then please state so on the mailing list along with a short introduction for those of us that don't know you yet. Cheers, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

2 1

WG chair rotation
by Gert Doering 10 Mar '17

10 Mar '17

Dear AP WG, as per the WG chair policy we gave us, the WG chairs are appointed for a two year duty, and then have to step down (and can be re-appointed). https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… This year, it's my term to step down. Which I will do at the upcoming RIPE meeting - and Sander as remaining chair will oversee the selection of a new WG chair. I am happy and willing to serve another term, so there's already one candidate for your consideration :-) 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

1 0

2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '17

10 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. 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 9 March 2017 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/2015-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 3

2016-05 going to last-call (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Sander Steffann 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Hello Working Group, The last review phase of 2016-05 (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) has just ended, and for this policy proposal a quick decision of the working group chairs was easy. There has only been positive feedback from you so we have declared consensus and asked the RIPE NCC to move the proposal to the Last Call phase. The positive feedback to the current version was from: - John Collins - Ian Dickinson - Sascha Knabe - Martin Krengel - Frank Meyer - Mathew Newton Thanks to the working group for working on this proposal, Sander Steffann RIPE APWG co-chair

1 0

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2

2016-05 I agree
by Frank Meyer 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen

3 2

RIPE 73 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 73 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-73 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Addressing in 2016 (by Geoff Huston)
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Feb '17

08 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, For those who missed Geoff Huston's article about "Addressing in 2016" on the APNIC blog, it is now also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/addressing-in-2016 "Let’s see what has changed in the past 12 months in addressing the Internet, and look at how IP address allocation information can inform us of the changing nature of the network itself." Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition) You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 October 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Matthieu Herrb 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Hi, sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected. My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI allocation would not violate the policy. Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the original proposal and Ondřej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost. In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay completely under his control, even though the systems using them are operated by his clients. This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small scale hosting). RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI space usage is really restricted for small entities. Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not using PI space for this kind of hosting ? Regards, -- Matthieu Herrb

1 0

2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. You can find the full proposal and the 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 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 31 January 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

7 6

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Hi all, I just want to clarify that this version, compared with the initial version and the previous discussions in the list, has only minor grammar/clarifications edits and the main difference is that we have removed the HD-ratio change, to sync it with the actual HD-ration tables being used by the IPv6 policy. As you know, it is required by the PDP, in order to the WG chairs to judge if there is consensus, that you stated (or restate if you already done this in the previous phase), if you agree or not with this version. So please, go ahead, re-read it and provide your inputs to the list. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

New on RIPE Labs: 15,000 LIRs
by Nick Hyrka 28 Dec '16

28 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Now that we've reached 15,000 LIRs, a new article on RIPE Labs looks at the growth of our membership and the impact this will have on the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/15-000-local-internet-registries Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, One of the RIPE 73 RACI fellows, Ioana Livadariu, presented an interesting study about the IPv4 transfer market at the RIPE Meeting in Madrid. She now published this study also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-the-ipv4-transfer-ma… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio). So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can’t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no “normative” issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let’s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi Leo, I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es" <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can´t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you’re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Responder a: <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Dec '16

14 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 10

Proceeding with proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification)
by Sander Steffann 27 Nov '16

27 Nov '16

Hello working group, The end of the discussion phase of proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification) has been reached. At this point in the PDP the proposer, in agreement with the working group chairs, decides whether to move forward. The chairs have determined that we have general consensus that the use-cases described in the proposal are valid ways to use PI space and the policy should reflect that. However there has been discussion on the exact way to fix the policy. The proposer has told us that he wants to continue with the current proposal and continue to the review phase. We decided to agree with this and go to review phase. The RIPE NCC will make an impact analysis and based on that we can continue the discussion on the list, review the proposal and where necessary adjust the exact wording of the proposal. Cheers, Sander & Gert Your working group chairs

1 0