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

Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Infinity Telecom SRL 11 May '15

11 May '15

Hello, If this proposal will be accepted: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 The price per IP found at "IPv4 Transfer Listing Service" will be double or even worst. Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them. To pay double or even more for some spammed IP.. its not a good choice.. only because smart guys with no real internet business hold very large blocks This proposal should have more time, its not like any other proposal, this can affect activity for a lot of small companies. Thank you. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis(a)infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact(a)infinitytelecom.ro

28 123

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 09 May '15

09 May '15

Hi all, speaking for the LIR requesting IPv6 space for the government authorities in Switzerland I support the proposed policy change. Whereas the existing policy wording promotes a non-wasteful use of addresses, it prevents the implementation of addressing plans that are aligned with federated organisational structures where the principle of subsidiarity is followed and members are highly autonomous. Such addressing plans may be required in large organisations or federations of autonomous states, which in addition to membership of the containing whole, may require autonomous routing and addressing plans. kind regards, John Collins ch.swissgov FOITT An IT Service Provider of the Swiss Federal Administration

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Ivan Bulavkin 06 May '15

06 May '15

> ... and reading this I think the policy must be strictly changed. I do > not exactly know the wording of RIPE membership rules, but if you set up > a "Verein" in Germany (and this is more or less the type which matches > best the legal form RIPE NCC has) you are recommended to put something > like "each and every person who is willingly doing any harm to the club, > it's reputation or other members is to be kicked out without any right > for compensations. All rights this person has be being member are > immediately withdrawn. The exclusion from the club does not reduce the > any regress against the excluded member". > Except this is not policy (done by the RIPE community), but a RIPE NCC > affair. Changes like this are to be decided in general meeting with > approval from a majority of members (including the incriminated LIRs and > people that may not understand what this is all about). > Discussing such issues shoud be done ont the APWG mailing list, but on > the members-discuss or a membership-related mailing list. > Please also take into account that people having a right to vote at the > NCC GM are not always the same as the ones active here. > But the idea is not bad. > I see, that it is not possible to prevent every bypassing, but I think > someone who is even spaming and advertising sale of resources shall be > kicked out RIPE NCC immediately and all resources this person or > enterprise ever requested should be withdrawn! In 2010, 2011, 2012 I was just a LIR client (I didn't have my own registered LIR) : I asked the LIR for IPv4 assignment and got it. The cost for /21 IPv4 assignment was 300 USD/year. I got some /21 assignments from one LIR, some /21 from another LIRs and all were - ok: the price was good for me, I used the PA space from LIR allocation (as RIPE NCC recommended and didn't ask for PI IPv4). On June 2012, I received a letter from my LIR that says: the price for PA assignment /21 from January 2013 will 24000 USD/year. The another LIRs increased price for PA IPv4, but no so dramatically. I had to find a replacement for address space with a crazy price that affected the clients. So we can see the following: 1) Client asked the LIR for IPv4, and the LIR recommends the PA IPv4 assignment from their allocation; 2) The LIR asked the RIPE NCC for new allocation for clients and got more and more allocations; 3) The RIPE NCC didn't control the price for IPv4 for LIR clients; 3.1) I'm sure, the RIPE NCC shall not approved the PI IPv4 assignment for me with reason: I'm not sure that a RIPE NCC member (LIR) will not increase drastically the prices. 4) One day the LIR drastically increase the price for PA IPv4 for end users from 300 USD/year to 24000 USD/year and the multiple PA allocations are ready for sell... 5) The RIPE NCC policies didn't allow me to register the my own LIR and picked up the PA allocation from crazy LIR: pay or close your business, or get only /22. 6) The RIPE NCC is approved the "selling" the IPv4 from last /8 on 23/01/2013 - it is good for any existing and new LIR to get /22 that LIR really don't need and sell it for 10$/IP. 7.1) The RIPE NCC is approving selling the IPv4 from 185/8 for 2 years and there is no reaction from RIPE NCC community, only now. 7.2) So why do I need to pay 15$/IP or more to the LIR from my real history or to any existing LIR from 185/8? P.S. Maybe someone who speaks the most about saving 185/8 and has reserves of IPv4 is ready to transfer them to me for free, because they had previously received them from RIPE for free? I think I know in advance the answer to this rhetorical question. Best regards, Ivan Bulavkin

1 0

Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Fredy Kuenzler 06 May '15

06 May '15

All, as we are doing a daily diff of ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt we observed that something happens right now which was probably not forseen and not inteded by the policy. I thought to make the working group aware. Regards, Fredy / Init7 -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [allocdelta] New or removed allocations Datum: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:00:36 +0200 Von: allocdelta(a)init7.net * ru.ibulavkin25 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150224 185.89.104.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150217 2a03:7f60::/32 * ru.ibulavkin26 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150217 185.88.96.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150216 2a03:7da0::/32 * ru.ibulavkin29 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150409 185.95.100.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin33 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150422 185.97.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin35 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150414 185.95.228.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.srv2013 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20140930 185.71.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141119 185.77.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141121 185.78.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141031 185.75.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.180.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130626 185.29.124.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.172.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130527 2a00:90a0::/32 [ADD] 20141216 185.81.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141001 185.71.212.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141113 185.76.240.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140903 185.68.244.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140604 185.59.232.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140521 185.58.112.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140829 185.68.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141216 185.24.108.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.48.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA

27 36

Agenda for Amsterdam, draft v2
by Gert Doering 02 May '15

02 May '15

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a new draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 13, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 13, 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. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection [15 min?] - longest-serving chair (Gert Doering) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO [15-20 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 RIPE69 2014-04 Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 (consensus, policy) 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources (consensus, policy) 2014-07 Language Clarification 2014-08 Language Clarification 2014-10 Language Clarification 2014-11 Language Clarification (consensus, policy) 2014-09 Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space for IXPs" **no consensus, withdrawn** 2014-12 Allow IPv6 Transfers (consensus, policy) 2014-13 Allow AS Number Transfers (consensus, policy) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [30-40 min] (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals [10-30 min] 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders - no discussion, just status update from the WG chair) 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations (Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back H. Will It Be Routed? - On IPv6 Address Space Allocation & Assignment [30 m] Approaches in Very Large Organizations Presentation by Enno Rey, and Discussion F. Discussion of open policy proposals (continued) [45 min?] 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation (James Kennedy) 2015-03 Assignment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size (Mathew Newton, Alexander Brinkmann) G. New Ideas under Discussion [15 min] - Elvis Daniel Velea - change size of last /22 allocations - Erik Bais - unified transfer policy Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) 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

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 28 Apr '15

28 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

6 8

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by LIR (BIT I 5) 26 Apr '15

26 Apr '15

I also would support this proposal. Regards Carsten -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2015 09:48 An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Looks good to me. Support. Nick On 14/04/2015 14:52, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" > is now available for discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > >

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

1 0

RIPE Labs article on how Website Redesign affects Policy Proposal Discussions
by Marco Schmidt 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The latest update on RIPE Labs is an article highlighting the simplification of policy proposal discussions thanks to the re-design of www.ripe.net. - Find out how the diff tool allows easy comparison of RIPE documents. - Learn how we improved navigation and participation. - Discover more improved usability elements when you read the full article at: https://www.ripe.net/s/iO45 For comments or questions, you’re welcome to use the RIPE Labs article page or send me a direct email. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE70 meeting agenda, draft 1
by Gert Doering 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 13, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 13, 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. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection Process [15 min?] - presenting the current draft document - discussion C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO [15-20 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 RIPE69 2014-04 Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 (consensus, policy) 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources (consensus, policy) 2014-07 Language Clarification 2014-08 Language Clarification 2014-10 Language Clarification 2014-11 Language Clarification (consensus, policy) 2014-09 Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space for IXPs" **no consensus, withdrawn** 2014-12 Allow IPv6 Transfers (consensus, policy) 2014-13 Allow AS Number Transfers (consensus, policy) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [10-15 min] (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders) 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations (Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F. Discussion of open policy proposals [60 min?] 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation (James Kennedy) N.N. "On IPv6 Allocation Criteria" (no formal proposal yet) G. New Ideas under Discussion - Elvis Daniel Velea - change size of last /22 allocations Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) 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 Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

2 2

2015-01 Impact Analysis will be produced (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has ended. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by Marco Schmidt 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05 The new RIPE Document is ripe-644 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-644 The proposal also amended the policies described in the RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". The new RIPE Document is ripe-643 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-643 We have already begun the implementation and will start with our procedures, including the necessary coordination with the other RIRs. The technical implementation will start in around one month's time, as it needs to link with the ongoing implementation of the recently accepted IPv6 and ASN transfer policies. We estimate that it will take about four months to fully implement this proposal. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… We will send another announcement when the implementation is finished and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources", have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 2.0 include: - Introduction of needs justification for transfers from RIR regions that require need-based policies - Explicit statement about when RIPE policies apply during a transfer - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05 The draft documents are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 February 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 15

Working group chair rotation 1
by Sander Steffann 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Hello working group, As we now have a working group chair rotation/selection process in place it is time to start that process for the first time! After long deliberation (a.k.a. a random number generator) we have decided that Gert is going to be the first chair to step down. He will do so at the upcoming RIPE meeting (RIPE 70 in Amsterdam). He has also volunteered again and is therefore our first candidate. If anybody else wants to volunteer then please make yourself known on this mailing list before the start of RIPE 70. Cheers, Sander & Gert

3 3

Working group chair selection process: consensus
by Sander Steffann 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Hi working group, The last call for the working group chair selection process has ended and no further comments were received. Therefore the working group chairs hereby declare consensus for the process. Cheers, Sander & Gert

1 0

2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Riccardo Gori 03 Apr '15

03 Apr '15

Hi everybody, This policy proposal gets +1 support from me, a rookie. My little experience is so recent but so clear: RIPE wants to burn out this resources or at least make this resources available does not matter to who. Maybe someone thinks this way will be the IPv6 time or maybe someone owns a lot of resources and wants to make much more money from them for a while... don't know. Too young in this to understand, anyway this looks to me slightly far from the spirit of the last /8 policy I read. I think the support of the policy would be correct but it can certainly higher the market price and if there is no way to stop big player this could be converted in a mess. Thee proposal is a good start but I think the community needs something better. I would go this way: - approve 24 months holding time - forbid companies (not LIRs) holding more than one /22 if they already hold resources before allocated before /8 policy Older resource holder allocated before /8 policy had the chance in the past to request resources for sligtly lower costs. They are in the market and they have experience in routing and managin IPs, they should (must) start IPv6 deployment as an example for others. kind regards Riccardo Gori

1 0

aggregating unused allocations
by Antonis Lioumis 24 Mar '15

24 Mar '15

Hello Recently my company got a /22 allocation through the well known transfer procedure between LIR's. In the past we also got the /22 we qualify from RIPE NCC's last /8. This /22 was put aside for future use. For aggregation purposes we asked RIPE NCC to return both /22 and get back a /21 but according to current policies this is forbidden. Since global routing table has exceeded 500000 prefixes and expected to grow more maybe RIPE community should rethink permitting the exchange of smaller IPv4 blocks with contiguous one. Regards Antonis Lioumis

4 3

2014-12 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", has been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy change allows the transfer of IPv6 allocations and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignments within the RIPE NCC service region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-641 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-641 Given the similarity of this policy to the recently accepted Policy Proposal 2014-13, "Allow AS Number Transfers", the RIPE NCC will implement both policy changes together. This is a more efficient execution of the policy implementation process and will lead to an extension of only two weeks to the initial estimated implementation period. We therefore estimate that to fully implement both proposals together will take three and a half months in total. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Working group chair selection process
by Sander Steffann 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

Hi Working Group, We finally have a final draft for the working group chair selection process. Sorry for taking so long. Here is the text we propose to use: --- The RIPE Address Policy Working Group aims to maintain a team of two Chairpersons whenever possible. # Electing a chairperson Once a year one of the chairs will step down, allowing new candidates the opportunity to become chair. The chairs take turns stepping down, and this is announced to the working group mailing list at least one month before the start of a RIPE meeting. The working group will select new chair(s) at the RIPE Address Policy Working Group session. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among themselves who takes the available position(s). The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a chair the RIPE chair will determine consensus. If no consensus can be reached then a secret ballot to elect the new chair(s) will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff, and the result will be determined using proportional representation through the single transferable vote, otherwise known as PR-STV. The winner(s) of the secret ballot will become the new chair(s). # Running for chairperson Anybody is allowed to volunteer for a vacant chair position, including former chairs. Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in "Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). # Removing a chairperson When a significant number of participants in the working group are unsatisfied with a particular chair, and this cannot be resolved by discussion within the working group, they can call for a vote of no confidence. The vote must be requested on the mailing list at least one week before a RIPE meeting. The vote will be resolved using a secret ballot, which will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the meeting can participate. The votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and the result is determined by simple majority. If the vote is passed the chair who is the subject of the vote will step down immediately. --- We're doing a two-week last-call on this (ending on Friday 3 April) and if there are no objections we will use this process starting at RIPE70 in Amsterdam. Cheers, Sander & Gert The current APWG chairs

2 3

2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Sonia Garbi Gomez 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

Hi Elvis, see my reply inline > *From: *Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)v4escrow.net > <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net>> > *Subject: **Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal > (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)* > *Date: *19 Mar 2015 11:13:18 GMT+1 > *To: *address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> > > Hi Sonia, > > those numbers were quite clear. What we were wondering is whether it > is possible to register an LIR in Q4 2015, pay the €2400, receive the > /22, transfer the /22, close the LIR within the same quarter. > This was correct. If a new LIR was joined at the end of the year, the LIR had to pay only for the last quarter as well as the sign-up fee. However, the RIPE NCC Executive Board held it latest meeting on 20 March 2015. The Board made a resolution that LIRs that join the RIPE NCC and close within 12 months, have to pay the full annual service fee before commencement of a merger, transfer or a closure procedure. This means that from now on, an LIR that joins the RIPE NCC in the course of the year (for example in June 2015) and wishes to close before the end of the year, will have to pay the full service fee for 2015 (rather than the last two quarters as was previously the case) before a merger, transfer or closure procedure can commence. An official announcement will follow shortly along with the minutes of the Executive Board Meeting. Have a lovely weekend. Sonia > Or, does the LIR need to pay the fee for a whole year (4 quarters) > when they close (or transfer the /22) - regardless on which Q they > were opened? > > Regards, > Elvis > > On 19/03/15 10:02, Sonia Garbi Gomez wrote: >> Dear all >> >> For 2015, all RIPE NCC members are charged an annual service fee of € 1,600 for each LIR account they hold. >> For New LIRs that are established during the year, the service fee is applied pro rata, meaning thus that new LIRs established during the course of 2015, are charged as follow: >> >> New LIR established: Total fee: How the fee is made up: >> * during first quarter € 3,600 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,600) >> * during second quarter € 3,200 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,200) >> * during third quarter € 2,800 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 800) >> * during fourth quarter € 2,400 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 400) >> I hope this clarifies the question. >> best regards >> >> Sonia Garbi Gomez >> Finance Manager >> RIPE NCC > > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net/> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Executive Officer > > Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Sonia Garbi Gomez 19 Mar '15

19 Mar '15

Dear all For 2015, all RIPE NCC members are charged an annual service fee of € 1,600 for each LIR account they hold. For New LIRs that are established during the year, the service fee is applied pro rata, meaning thus that new LIRs established during the course of 2015, are charged as follow: New LIR established: Total fee: How the fee is made up: * during first quarter € 3,600 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,600) * during second quarter € 3,200 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,200) * during third quarter € 2,800 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 800) * during fourth quarter € 2,400 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 400) I hope this clarifies the question. best regards Sonia Garbi Gomez Finance Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8"
by Nikolas Pediaditis 19 Mar '15

19 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8". In accordance with the new policy, RIPE NCC members can now request to receive a one time /22 IPv4 allocation from the last /8 without the requirement to already have an IPv6 allocation. The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-634 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Nick Hilliard 18 Mar '15

18 Mar '15

> I think that the more we talk about it, the more this loophole will be > (ab)used. The part that was just theoretical was estimating how long it > will take a company to decide that instead of going to the market, they > could actually go to the RIPE NCC and get a /16 or maybe a /12 at €2.3 - > €3.4 per IP (depending in which quarter you decide to do it). from what I understand, the procedures clarified in RIPE-640 mean that the price of a /22 obtained by LIR churn will remain at startup fee + 1Y membership, and that it doesn't make any difference to the overall cost whether this is done in Q1 or Q4 because when you open a LIR, you are liable for a full year's membership fees. I.e. cost of doing this in 2015 is 1600+2000 = 3600, or €3.51 per ip address. Nick

3 2

2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Mar '15

18 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 18 March 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1