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

2013-02 Last Call for Comments (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Marco Schmidt 13 May '13

13 May '13

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2013-02, Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses, 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 10 June 2013 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 co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 10 June 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 End of Review Phase (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Gert Doering 08 May '13

08 May '13

Dear Address Policy WG, the review period for this policy proposal is now over. Sander and I went through your comments, and all that we received in the review phase were 9 statements of "+1" or "support", no questions and no objections - so we think this is good to go to last call now. Emilio will send the formal announcement soon (public holiday in Amsterdam tomorrow). I'm not asking you to challenge our evaluation this time :-) Gert Doering, APWG chair On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, > "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", > 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/2013-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 May 2013. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

updated agenda draft for RIPE 66
by Gert Doering 07 May '13

07 May '13

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 Dublin in the following SINGLE time slot: Wednesday, May 15, 09:00 - 10:30 (we might run a bit into the coffee break, if the discussions become very heated :-) - but then usually nobody minds...) If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio - 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 RIPE65 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima E. What is Consensus? (tentative) - from the WG chair http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-02 F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2012-02 Policy for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 Address Space (update from the chair: where are we, what are the next steps) [2012-03 Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal (withdrawn)] [2012-04 (IPv4) PI assignments from the last /8 (withdrawn)] 2013-02 Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses 2013-03 No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup H. IPv6 PA/PI unification proposal what happened (not much) -> next steps? 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 -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

time slot reshuffling
by Gert Doering 07 May '13

07 May '13

Dear AP and NCC Service WG members, dear RIPE meeting team, the original plan for this RIPE meeting was to have two timeslots for the AP WG meeting (Wednesday 09:00-10:30 and 11:00-12:30) and one timeslot for the NCC services WG meeting (Wed 16:00-17:30). Somewhat unexpected, APWG has a very light agenda due to a number of proposals having reached consensus or having been withdrawn, while NCC Services has a much heavier agenda than usual, with lots of proposals needing proper time for discussion. So the APWG chairs and NCC Services WG chairs have agreed to use the "Wednesday 11:00-12:30" time slot not for AP but for the NCC Services working group (overlapping with the DNS working group). That is, APWG will only meet between 09:00 and 10:30, while NCC services will meet twice, 11:00-12:30 and 16:00-17:30. The RIPE meeting team will update the meeting plan on the web ASAP, and you'll see new agenda drafts for both working groups shortly. Sorry for the late change in planning, and apologies for any confusion caused by this... Gert Doering, for the AP WG and NCC Services Chairs -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ----- End forwarded message ----- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

2012-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 07 May '13

07 May '13

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Policy Document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 Reason for Withdrawal: Since the introduction of 2013-03, "No Need - Post Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup", it has become clear that the RIPE Community is heading towards full deregulation of the IPv4 assignment model. The proposer has decided that it is unlikely that the RIPE Community would achieve consensus on PI assignments from the last /8 without a requirements-based assignment mechanism. Consequently the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 Review Period extended until 17 April (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 02 May '13

02 May '13

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2012-02 has been extended until 17 April. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 April 2013. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
by Mikael Abrahamsson 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43CGqq70rM> <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03> discussion has ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) adopt similar policy. We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check). If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the other RIR has rules that hinder)? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

4 4

[news] Policy Proposal 2012-09 "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments" implemented
by Marisol Estrada 25 Apr '13

25 Apr '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE policy proposal 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for temporary assignments under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09> The updated "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies" document is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-587> The "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Request Form " can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-586> The supporting notes can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-585> If you have any questions, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marisol Estrada RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer was against needs justification and had initially proposed a 24 month justification period out of a desire for compatibility with the policies of other RIRs. The proposer views the ongoing policy proposal 2013-03 "No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup" as being more in line with their views. As a consequence, the proposer has withdrawn the proposal. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Apr '13

18 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2013-03, "No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup", has ended. A draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Christoph Neukirch 18 Apr '13

18 Apr '13

Am 10.04.13 15:30 schrieb "Marco Schmidt" unter <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: >The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, >"Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", >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/2013-02 +1 support kind regards Christoph Neukirch XING AG

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Daniel Roesen 18 Apr '13

18 Apr '13

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 supported. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

2012-09 Proposal Accepted (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Apr '13

17 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 The updated RIPE document is ripe-587 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-587 Thank you for your input. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Emilio Madaio 17 Apr '13

17 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 April 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

32 68

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Andy Davidson 16 Apr '13

16 Apr '13

On 10/04/2013 14:30, "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: >"Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", Support. Andy

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Erik Bais 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support +1

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Tore Anderson 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Tore

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Sandra Brown

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, > "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", > 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/2013-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > I support this proposal. -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by James Blessing 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

On 10 April 2013 14:30, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > support -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact AnalysisPublished (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

I agree with this proposal. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood(a)imerja.com NIC: JS7259-RIPE -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Hallmark House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO9001 / ISO27001 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

1 0

2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", 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/2013-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 May 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics?
by Tore Anderson 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

Quick question for the WG: What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved" transfers? a) Keep it, or b) Remove it? (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.) Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… (bottom of page) I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused transfers. Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the intention of the statistics is to record «transfers [that] were denied on the basis of needs evaluation»: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de-aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However, since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into version 2 of 2013-03. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 27 Mar '13

27 Mar '13

> You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 April 2013. Support. This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy. Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here. Sandra Brown

12 41

minimum allocation size in case of transform addresses
by Andrzej Dopierała 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

Hi! I found today out, that there is planed possibility to convert PI assignments to PA allocation. But - i'ts planed only for /22 and bigger assignments, due to minimum allocation size, and doesn't apply for example /23 or /22 assignemnts. I think it's a bit pointless. AFAIK sense of minimum allocation is suppression of unnecessary fragmentation. But - in this case - this pool is already in use, and is already visible in bgp table. Allowing or disallowing conversion doesn't have any relation with growing address space. What's more - allowing conversion of any assignment can save some of address space. Most of PI assignemts (known to me) is partialy unused. After years from assignemnts part of the plans has been withdrawn (but another parts are citical - dns servers etc - so whole assignemnt can't be returned). Allowing conversion would allow use it back, for example for customers... (sorry for my english - i hope that sense is understandable) -- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

3 2