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

2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The only change in the new version is: -modified the first sentence in the second paragraph of section 5.5, "Transfer of Allocation", in the RIPE Policy document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

18 32

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Randy Bush 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

this proposal seems sensible. randy

1 0

Policy Proposal 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers" Implemented
by Andrea Cima 25 Mar '13

25 Mar '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now publishing the required statistics at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… This page will be updated weekly. The data is also available in JSON format here: https://www-static.ripe.net/dynamic/table-of-transfers/transfers.json The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012-… The updated RIPE Document 582, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582 If you have any questions, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

>>Back in December, I suggested that the wording be changed from ?LIRs? to >>something more generic. The rationale was that if the policy explicitly >>refers to LIRs only, this will prevent inter-region transfers of PI >>address space held by non-LIRs, even if the IPv4 policy is amended to >>allow for in-region transfers of PI addresses. >>The proposer responded: ?I am quite willing to change the wording from >>LIR's to Organizations if all agree?. I saw no objections, but version >>2.0 still refers to LIRs specifically. So I'd still like to see this >>changed. >>That said... >>I support the idea of allowing inter-region transfers in general as long >>as the marginal cost of doing so is reasonably low, so I feel a bit bad >>about this, but: I do *not* support this proposal. >>The reason for this is that inter-region transfers are being used as an >>argument against proposal 2013-03, see: >>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007757.… >>My view is that if the cost of allowing for inter-region transfers >>(specifically in a way that is compatible with ARIN's policy) is to >>uphold the need bureaucracy and operational overhead relating to >>assignments for all RIPE region LIRs, then the marginal cost is not >>reasonably low, but unacceptably high. If it's an either/or situation >>between 2012-02 and 2013-03, I'm firmly in the 2013-03 camp. I elaborate >>on why here: >>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007764.… >>This issue might be resolved by having 2012-02 add some text that >>upholds the need principle for transfers coming in from regions that >>demand it (read: ARIN), or for the recipient LIRs of such transfers >>overall. I have no suggestion on exactly how this text could look like, >>I'm afraid. I suspect the proposer would have to discuss it with ARIN >>staff in order to get confirmation that any proposed text does indeed >>satisfy their definition of ?needs-based general number resource policies?. >>Tore Tore, I agree with all you say, and in fact, the more open and inclusive the process, the better. The problem I ran into in trying to include PI space and end user space in inter-Regional transfers, is that it is not included in intra-regional transfers, and to change 2012-02 to include more, I would have to open a larger kettle of fish. So I chose to keep the scope narrow for now, thinking that the scope could be widened for all assignment types later. The warning that no needs justification in the RIPE region will give cause for ARIN to not allow inter-RIR transfers from ARIN to RIPE does not hold water. Say ARIN is giving out new IP's that will shortly be traded to RIPE and monetized, if RIPE does not have a needs justification checkpoint. That implies that ARIN has no confidence in its own needs justification system for new IP's. The counter point is that there are many address holders from, say the 1990's, who want to monetize and they didn't just get IP's and they still have their IP's exposed to that same needs justification on their buyers (ie. the wrong party, it's the sellers who are supposedly in the wrong). Needs justification is supposed to be on the part of the buyer, but as I understand it, this ARIN argument is that needs justification is needed to prevent the seller from getting away with IP theft. RIPE needs justification on the buyer will not prevent a new IP recipient in the ARIN region from selling its IP's to RIPE. The needs justification argument fails in this case. Needs justification arguments in the past were that buyers of IP's had to prevented from stockpiling and cornering the market. I guess the proponents of this theory have realized that cornering the IP market could be like cornering the silver market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt So if there is no argument in favor of needs justification to prevent sellers from cheating, and no argument to prevent buyers from cheating, Tore's idea must be a good one. Still, +1. Sandra

1 0

2012-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues The draft document for the version 3.0 of the proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfers Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The only change in the new version is: -removed a modification to the second paragraph of section 5.5, "Transfer of Allocation", in the RIPE Policy document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

5 5

2012-03 Review Period extended until 17 April 2013 (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2012-03 has been extended until 17 April. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 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 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Carlos Friacas 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Support. On Thu, 28 Feb 2013, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

Support for 2013-03
by Eirik Hjelle 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

I support 2013-03 by Tore Anderson of Linpro I represent LIR: Blix Group AS LIR: Blix Solutions AS -- Eirik Hjelle CEO • Blix Solutions AS ☎ +(47) 21 55 56 66 IP Transit • Colocation • Dedicated servers

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published(Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 20 Mar '13

20 Mar '13

>>I'm worried by the wooliness of phrases such as >>"The Originating LIR and the IPv4 address space transferred are in >>compliance with the Originating Policy" >>I really don't know what this means and I see a world of pain unless >>it's clarified. What does "in compliance with" actually mean in this >>context? Currently the only RIR's with similar transfer policies are ARIN and APNIC. As an example, if the LIR is in ARIN region, then the LIR must be in compliance with ARIN policy in order to transfer its IPv4 address space to a RIPE LIR. The ARIN based LIR would apply to ARIN and request to transfer. (That is how it works for ARIN to APNIC transfers today.) ARIN makes sure the LIR has registration of the space before making the transfer. Similarly, I would expect for a RIPE to ARIN or APNIC transfer RIPE needs to ensure that the RIPE LIR has correct registration of the IP space being transferred.

2 1

DRAFT agenda for RIPE66
by Gert Doering 20 Mar '13

20 Mar '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 two time slots: Wednesday, May 15, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 15, 11:00 - 12:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". As we're conflicting with both database and DNS, we might have to shift stuff around somewhat more than usual to accomodate conflicts of interest - so if there is something that should be in "the other slot", tell me. If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of 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 F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2012-02 Policy for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 Address Space 2012-03 Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal 2012-04 (IPv4) PI assignments from the last /8 2013-02 Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Discussion of open policy proposals (continued) 2013-03 No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup 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 -- 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

RIPE NCC to Assign 16-bit ASNs Until ASN Pool is Replenished
by Andrew de la Haye 19 Mar '13

19 Mar '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has less than 100 32-bit Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) available in its pool. Given current assignment rates, we expect that we will run out of 32-bit ASNs before May 2013. We will soon begin to assign 16-bit ASNs for all requests until our pool has been replenished by IANA. This will not result in any operational issues for requestors as 16-bit ASNs are compatible with equipment designed to run BGP. This situation was anticipated and covered during the RIPE NCC Registration Services update during the RIPE 65 Meeting. You can see the details in the "Feedback from RIPE NCC Registration Services" presentation available at: <https://ripe65.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/address-policy-wg/> -------------------------- Replenishing our ASN Pool -------------------------- The RIPE NCC requests additional ASNs from IANA based on "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-480> Under this policy, we need to demonstrate 80% usage of "the previously received ASN block" (which includes both 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs we received from IANA on 3 March 2012) to replenish our ASN pool. We are expecting to reach this usage rate within six to eight months. The RIPE NCC will return to the usual procedure of assigning 32-bit AS numbers "by default" once our ASN pool is replenished. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Background on 32-bit ASN assignments in the RIPE NCC service region -------------------------------------------------------------------- The RIPE NCC assigns ASNs based on the "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures": <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-52>. In accordance with the RIPE Address Policy Working Group decision, announced at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2010-January/00497…>, the RIPE NCC assigns 32-bit ASNs by default unless a 16-bit ASN is specifically requested. As a result of this practice, 32-bit ASNs are currently supported by most vendors and routed globally. Of the 3,400 32-bit ASNs in the global routing table, 64% were assigned by the RIPE NCC within its service region (Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia). Best regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

9 9

2012-02 Inter RIR IPv4 transfer policy
by philip.m.rushton＠bt.com 18 Mar '13

18 Mar '13

I can't quote right now due to limited mail support, but I want to state support for 2012-02, the inter RIR IPv4 transfer policy". Sent from handheld device Regards Phil Rushton Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy BT Technology Service & Operations, Office: + 44 (0) 1977 594807 Fax : +44 (0) 1908 862698 Email: philip.m.rushton(a)bt.com This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential. It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately on the email address above. Thank you. We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no: 1800000

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Andrew de la Haye 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

Dear colleagues, In order to clarify some points of the impact analysis and facilitate the current community discussion, we would like to highlight some details about the foreseen implementation activity related to the proposal 2012-02. With regards to the two points of the impact analyses that are being questioned: "C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services Registration Services: It is very relevant to note that the implementation of this policy proposal will require a significant effort of co-ordination between the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs. It is unclear at the moment how much time and resources will be needed to fully implement the proposal." If the proposal is accepted, it should be noted that the RIPE NCC service region will be the third region involved in inter-RIR transfers, after ARIN and APNIC. There already exists close coordination between the RS departments of all RIRs as an ongoing and ordinary activity, aimed at monitoring trends, issues and solutions related to the resource registration activities. This policy proposal would increase the importance and relevance of this existing coordination by broadening its scope to inter-RIR transfer resources as well. Therefore based on both ARIN's and APNIC's experience in this area the amount of effort may be somewhat reduced. Each inter-RIR transfer will consist of: - evaluation of RIPE Policy compliance - evaluation of official documentation - coordination with the other involved RIR staff - updating registry entries Therefore, the only additional step compared to intra-RIR transfers would be the coordination with the other RIR staff. With regards to the estimated volume of the potential inter-RIR transfers, it is difficult to make predictions, as the only data currently available is the number of transfers currently taking place, which is less than 20 intra-RIR transfers to date. Based on those numbers, we do not expect a major increase in effort. The anticipated number of inter-RIR transfers is unclear and some members of the RIPE community are suggesting that not all RIPE NCC members would directly benefit from this policy, as is the case with many RIPE Policies. However, it is worth emphasising that if no inter-RIR policy is in place there is a growing risk that some entities will choose to transfer number resources without informing the relevant RIRs or reflect these transfers in the relevant registries. This would dilute the accuracy of the collective RIR registries and have a direct impact on the entire RIPE NCC membership. Therefore, as both APNIC and ARIN already have this policy in place, the RIPE community should consider the consequences of not having an inter-RIR transfer policy in place. "D. Legal Impact of Policy If this policy proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC will need to create appropriate legal procedures and template agreements in order for all parties to understand and agree on the preconditions and the consequences of the transfer in accordance with the provisions of this policy." Our legal department indicated that any changes to the appropriate legal procedures and template agreements would fit into the normal work processes that occur after any RIPE Policy has been implemented. Regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Mike Simkins 13 Mar '13

13 Mar '13

> At the moment I think there is a lot of detail that needs to be clarified here, including the terms Originating Policy / Destination Policy and 'Compatible Inter-RIR Policies' > > If I read this right, a transfer size will depend on the larger of the RIPE (currently /22) and the other RIRs (e.g. ARIN /20). How strict or 'fuzzy' is 'Compatible' ? > > When the allocation (or justification period moves out (from 3 months to 12 months, or 24 months - the policy number escapes me at this time), will we be using a fixed formula for time based justifications (what is a 24 Month period ? /19 ?, /18 ?, /16 ?) - Different LIRs can use (as in the past) different requirements / predictions for time period 'x'. Or is this to be judged on the previous allocations to an LIR over the preceding period 'x'. > > At the moment I lean towards 'Oppose', as some of the text seems too vague to me, and may cause some interesting interpretations. > > Although not strictly mentioned in this proposal, what (for example) happens to ERX space?. If a RIPE member acquires ERX space (lets say a /16), and then wants to perhaps offer that space to another member, does the classification stay as ERX (and the basic exemptions), or (on transfer) does it become regulated space (possible impact from 2012-07) and limited to a /22 (currently) that can only be transferred? > > > Mike.

1 0

2012-10 Last Call for Comments (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Mar '13

12 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-10, "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis", 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 9 April 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/2012-10 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 April 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-10 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Mar '13

12 Mar '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-10 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/2012-10 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

12 11

Policy Proposal 2012-06 Revert "Run Out Fairly" implemented
by David Hilario 06 Mar '13

06 Mar '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-06, Revert "Run Out Fairly" , has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv4 assignments and IPv4 allocations under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012-… The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582 IPv4 assignments request forms have been updated. You can access the request forms through the LIR Portal or online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-583 The supporting notes are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-584 If you have any questions, please contact<ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, David Hilario Registration Services RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

In reposting 2012-02, I realized that this policy had awkwardly referred to "within the RIPE region" and based on comments received, I realized we needed to make it more global in nature. Hence I changed it to refer to "RIR's with compatible policies". Section 5.5 of the IPv4 policy had previously been meant for intra-RIR transfers only. So, in making this policy change, the goal is to tweak the intra-RIR transfer policy to allow a non-conflicting inter-RIR transfer policy to co-exist.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

In reposting 2012-03, I updated the policy to refer only to time specific changes, ie the change from 3 months (and 12 months with 2012-06) to 24 months. I did not add any embellishments about the RIPE region that are not needed. The tweaks to section 5.5 fit with policy 2012-02 where we talk about the global nature. I prefer to see 2012-03 approved and the need period for all transfers to become 24 months without mentioning the transfer scope. This policy is only about the time for needs justification.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Christoph Neukirch 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Am 28.02.13 14:04 schrieb "Marco Schmidt" unter <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: > >Dear Colleagues > >A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for >discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > >Regards > >Marco Schmidt >on behalf of the Policy Development Office >RIPE NCC supported -- kind regards Christoph Neukirch

2 1

RIPE Policy Proposals 2012-02 and 2012-03.
by Matt Mather 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hi there, I am representing GTHL, AS31655 and I am trying to find out a little more about the polices mentioned in the subject line of this mail. I am particularly interested in when the current phase will to come conclusion and if proposals will either become policy or not. If you help shed some light on this I would appreciate it. Thanks and regards, Matt Mather. Matt Mather IP Design & Test Engineer [cid:175335.png@93d11731.469d99cb] +44 333 240 3348 [cid:a4dd06.png@ca9b06cb.4cb60299] +44 7848 026 072 [cid:2064f1.png@a37f7ca9.4fa780ae] matt.mather(a)gamma.co.uk [cid:f2ed08.png@33e479c2.45839582] http://www.gamma.co.uk [cid:image81cfba.JPG@07754e56.4a9e851f] Follow us [cid:image18ed05.GIF@bcc7563d.4f9c7814][cid:image018a85.GIF@21bb7df6.4190c541][cid:imagee5cab3.GIF@aca78f6f.4692f34b]<http://twitter.com/WeAreGamma> ________________________________ This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmaster(a)gamma.co.uk Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Milton L Mueller 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Support > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:05 AM > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of > requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) > > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

Support. No need of a policy text not being used. MVH/Regards Ragnar > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt > Sent: 28. februar 2013 14:05 > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of > requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) > > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2013. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

2 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Roger Jørgensen 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ supported... -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Sascha Luck 28 Feb '13

28 Feb '13

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 02:04:38PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/ Support. cheers, Sascha Luck

2 1