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

2014-02 Proposal Accepted (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached and the proposal for a change to ripe-622, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-623 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We will create new internal and external procedures, and related tools and documentation, to ensure the correct processing of IPv4 PI transfers. We estimate it will take about two months to fully implement the policy proposal. Once the implementation is complete, we will make another announcement and the transfer of IPv4 PI assignments will then be possible. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Moving "2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)" to Last Call
by Gert Doering 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Dear Address Policy WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 August 2014. The review phase for 2014-02 has ended. Given the amount of support, the WG chairs have decided that we have reached consensus. We think that all points brought up by the opposers have been sufficiently discussed - this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward. This is what we'll do now -> move 2014-02 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that tomorrow or Wednesday. For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is what the chairs based their decision on. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair Review Phase, starting July 10, 2014 Support: Tore Anderson Sonderegger Olaf Andre Keller Scott Leibrand Elvis Velea Donal Cunningham Juan P. Cerezo Daniel Suchy Piotr.Strzyzewski Larisa Yurkina Hamed Shafaghi Questions: George Giannousopoulos (neutral) Opposing: Aleksei Ivanov (LeaderTelecom), main reason seems to be pricing some discussion, after clarification that APWG cannot directly influence pricing, opposition wasn't kept up In Discussion with Alexsei, without voicing a clear pro/contra statement, mainly about pricing for LIR account, PI, ... Erik Bais Andrzej Dopiera??a Andrei Kushnireuski Jens Ott

1 1

2014-04 Review Period extended until 6 October 2014 (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 19 Sep '14

19 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 has been extended until 6 October 2014. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 18 Sep '14

18 Sep '14

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:56:23 +1000 From: Elvis Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <5418EA47.8080307(a)velea.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Sandra, I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :) Do you have any updates on this policy proposal? @WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon? Kind regards, Elvis ----- Hi Elvis - RIPE NCC is conducting impact analysis at this time. Once this is complete, review phase will start. Best Sandra ------

2 1

2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 17 Sep '14

17 Sep '14

Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108(a)fud.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I can see no reason to not do this. With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a transfer involving a "needy" RIR. I have some comments/suggested improvements though: 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the resource-specific policy would allow for that. Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 section 5.5: ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR. When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the sending RIR.? These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? This statement seems out of place to me: * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a completely nonsensical outcome. IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because it already does just that. :-) *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you say. *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to *** me. Sandra So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for *** your support for the intent. *** Sandra Tore End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 *************************************************

3 2

2014-02 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Aug '14

26 Aug '14

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer", 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 24 September 2014 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 September 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Gert Doering 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

Dear Address Policy WG, another one, and then it's enough for today... On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. the review phase is over. Based on the comments received, the authors have decided to work on the text and a "version 2.0" of the document will come forward soon -> new impact analysis and a new round of discussion phase. Stay tuned :-) 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
by Aleksi Suhonen 19 Aug '14

19 Aug '14

Hello, On 07/11/2014 11:21 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. I know I'm late in the game, but I thought I'd contribute this view rather than stay silent: Remove multi homing requirement for 32bit ASNs only, keep the requirement for 16bit ASNs. I foresee new weird legacy setups run by non-ISPs that still require a unique ASN well into the future. The example I would usually use is factory floor environments, but that is probably not an applicable example here. I hope someone else's imagination can supply a valid example. Cheers, -- Aleksi Suhonen You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."

12 24

[Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 12 Aug '14

12 Aug '14

Dear Sirs, I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. Any Pros/cons? -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#-] в теме письма. --- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 [1]www.LeaderTelecom.ru URL: [2]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [3]http://Symantec.Leadertelecom.ru/ - SSL-сертификаты Symantec (Verisign) URL: [4]http://www.Thawte.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Thawte URL: [5]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS [1] http://www.leadertelecom.ru [2] http://www.instantssl.su/ [3] http://symantec.leadertelecom.ru [4] http://www.thawte.su/ [5] http://www.hostingconsult.ru/

5 11

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Gert Doering 09 Aug '14

09 Aug '14

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. So, tell me your thoughts, please. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair 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

15 26

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-01, "Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4"
by Saloumeh Ghasemi 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the accepted RIPE Policy Proposal 2014-01, "Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4", has now been implemented. The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document, ripe-622, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622/ Please note that we republished the RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", because it was originally published with a small error. The new, correct document is ripe-622, which deprecates ripe-621. As per section 5.5 of this new RIPE Document, Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are now allowed to transfer allocated Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space to other LIRs, regardless of the size of the allocations: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622#55 The RIPE NCC will continue to issue /22 allocations, as per section 5.1: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622#51 If you have any questions, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc@ripe.net>>. Regards, Saloumeh Ghasemi Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Sebastian Wiesinger 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> [2014-07-31 13:42]: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, > "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", > has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by > the RIPE NCC. I support this draft! Make it so. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Axel Pawlik 06 Aug '14

06 Aug '14

On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? Max, all, the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation provided by our members. This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national authority the member chooses. cheers, Axel

22 42

2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Extending the fulfilment of the IPv6 requirement to include any globally routable unicast IPv6 address block - 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/2014-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has the right to be contractually engaged with and to provide services to any legal entity, unless there are restrictions by law. Currently, Dutch law does not restrict our contractual engagement with, or provision of our services to, legal entities in Crimea. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27
by Lu 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014年7月29日, at 下午6:00, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A(a)bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Hi at all I also support the policy change. Best regards, Olaf (OLAF4-RIPE)

1 0

2014-01 Proposal Accepted (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-621 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-621 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We estimate it may take a few weeks to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. 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

Crimea papers
by Max Tulyev 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello All, don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly touches IP/ASN management, of course. Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why?

5 6

Consensus after Last Call on 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sander Steffann 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello working group, As per the RIPE PDP in ripe-614 the decision whether a proposal has reached consensus is now done by the working group chairs of the WG that discussed the proposal. We will give an overview of what occurred in the working group and explain how we came to our conclusions based on that. When this proposal went from Review phase to Last Call this was based on this analysis by the working group chairs: > During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. > > After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: > - Tore Anderson > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Piotr Strzyzewski > - Sascha Luck > - Jens Ott > - George Giannousopoulos > - Andreas Larsen > - Sebastian Wiesinger > > The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. During Last Call four more people stated their clear support (on 16 and 17 June) - Elvis Daniel Velea (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Erik Bais (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Janos Zsako (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Daniel Stolpe There were no other postings during Last Calls. Based on the comments received in review and last call phase, we have decided that consensus has indeed been reached. We therefore ask the RIPE NCC to implement this policy. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Your working group chairs, Gert Döring and Sander Steffann

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Job Snijders 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. Kind regards, Job

5 4

About the /22 allocation limitation
by Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Hi Everyone, First of all, my name is Daniel and Im the Network Administrator of the AS199952 Im new to the address policy wg and Im sure you can answer the question. The /22 allocation restriction to new LIRs are only for new LIRs or for all LIRs? We only got a /22 as new LIR, and we cant ask for more IPs, proving we need it or not. I know, this is a recursive discussion, but I wonder if old LIRs can ask for more IPs or they are restricted as new LIRs are. For all people who are going to say "Move to IPv6" I already did it. About 75% of my network is IPv6 ready. 100% of our backbone network is IPv6 but, as all of you can see, only 18% of the World ASes are IPv6 ( http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6?s=_ALL;s=_RIR_APNIC;s=_RIR_AfriNIC;s=_RIR_ARIN;s… ) and IPv6 wont work for anybody if the rest of the world isnt IPv6 ready. To be honest, I think IPv6 will not be ready before lot of us (new lirs)run out of IPv4 address while old LIRs have thousands and thousands of unused IP address and they sell them for really expensive price. I saw one in the listing service asking for at least 2 digits per IP... 2 digits! for something they got for free in the past. Again, I know, IPv4 is exhausted but this cant be used for making lot and fast money from new LIRs that only have /22 allocation and need more. I wonder if a change proposal of the policy to allow to ask for more IPs, of course proving the use of the ones you already have, and only giving /24's would be accepted by the community or I will get flamed for making the proposal. Please, feel free to discuss about this if you are going to say something usefull. PS: Sorry about my english, if I didnt explained well about something, just tell me. I will not feel offended. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).

25 112

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Tore Anderson 13 Jul '14

13 Jul '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 «RIPE NCC Registration Services expects that this proposal will have a very positive effect on the accuracy and consistency of the RIPE Registry as the resource holders will have more incentive to properly request and document transfers of PI assignments.» And that's why we have a registry in the first place, is it not? +1 Tore

2 1

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

11 Jul '14

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

2 1

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

11 Jul '14

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

1 0