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

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16
by Iftikhar Ahmad Mehar 02 Jan '13

02 Jan '13

Hi RIPE, Yes it does make sense that's why I vote in support of this proposal. Regards, Mehar Iftikhar Ahmad > From: address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:00:02 +0100 > > 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. 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on > a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Emilio Madaio) > 2. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension > of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6/32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Jamie Stallwood) > 4. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (Erik Bais) > 5. Re: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension > of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > (Julian Seifert) > 6. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (David Freedman) > 7. Re: 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 > on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) (James Blessing) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:12:50 +0100 > From: "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of > IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) > To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <E1TpcMU-0000QD-FA(a)puppy.ripe.net> > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:22:43 +0100 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy > Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR > basis) > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gSeLow2QyaVDNnCcBmmkxw2-CA9ebxac69TopbepLnCww(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Support. > > Anything else would be unfair and relatively easy to work around. > > > -- > Richard >

1 0

2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Dec '12

24 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

33 40

2012-06 Last Call for Comments (Revert "Run Out Fairly")
by Emilio Madaio 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 (not 2010-06) New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Gert Doering 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Hi, the review phase of this proposal is now over. The support from the community was strong and clear, so chairs and proposer have decided to move to Last Call -> Emilio will send the formal announcement tomorrow. (For the sake of the list archives: there was a mistake in the Subject: line of the announcement - it's 2012-06, not 2010-06, of course. The links given in the announcement mail are correct, and from the feedback given, I'm convinced everybody understood which proposal he or she was commenting on - so I don't think any harm was done by the typo, and we can go ahead) Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:28:52PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > 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

2012-05 Last Call for Comments (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Conclusions after review phase of 2012-05
by Sander Steffann 10 Dec '12

10 Dec '12

Hello working group, After careful consideration of everything that was discussed during the last review phase of policy proposal 2012-05 the working group chairs have decided to move 2012-05 to last call. There has been some discussion on whether the discussion on what the RIPE NCC should publish should be done using formal policy and the PDP. Considering the strong discussions on this topic we feel that it is appropriate to set this in policy, so we continue to use the PDP. We hereby ask the PDO (a.k.a. Emilio) to do all the paperwork necessary and move this policy proposal to last call. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy forInter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

3. Re: 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:57:07 +0100 From: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <50B9F093.9040700(a)redpill-linpro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Can someone explain more about what is involved in the audit? I was picturing more of a needs justification process where the applicant would illustrate that current IP's were 80% utilized. Is that the same as an audit? Also, Tore's last point on 2012-03 should be applied to the passing of 2012-02. In the event that 2012-03 is agreed to, and needs justification is extended from 3 months to 24 months, then 5.5 will have new wording to accommodate the change. Further, if 2012-02 is passed to allow for inter-RIR transfers to-from RIR's with like-policies, then Chapter 5.5 “Transfers of Allocations” of “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”; will require an additional wording change. Specifically, the second paragraph of 5.5 says: "...address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. " and if Inter-RIR transfers are approved this will change to LIR's of another RIR. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR TransferPolicy Proposal)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 03 Dec '12

03 Dec '12

> it would appear that the phrase ?Within the RIPE NCC service region,? > is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section > 5.5. I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says ?this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region?. It appears to me that the new paragraph being added (?other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation?), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ I agree with Tore. While in the immediate term, 2012-03 will apply to intra-RIR transfers within the RIPE region, the intent is to extend the needs justification period from 3 months to 24 months. Now that the RIPE NCC is down to the last /8, when an LIR is in need of IPv4 addresses, it is placed in the position of procuring them from another LIR within region. Doing a procurement every 3 months would be onerous, and extension is needed. However, to Tore's point, there is no point in restricting the policy to needs justification. It will be an independent decision to approve the inter-RIR policy 2012-02, but should this happen, the needs justification period should be common for any procurement. I think the intent of the rewording was to emphasize that it is a RIPE NCC Policy, but it could be misconstrued to imply that the policy is for transfers within the RIPE NCC, and not for any transfer to/from the RIPE NCC. My suggestion, since it is part of the RIPE NCC Policy Manual, would be to remove the words, as recommended by Tore. If 2012-02 is approved, it will make wording changes to 5.5 to allow for inter-RIR transfers. 5.5 Transfers of Allocations Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an End User. Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC, following the policies set for receiving further allocations within RIPE region (see the Section 5.3 Additional Allocations of this document). Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

>From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Tore Anderson 01 Dec '12

01 Dec '12

* Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR > Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published > > You can find the full proposa and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 On this page, it would appear that the phrase «Within the RIPE NCC service region,» is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section 5.5. > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03/draft However, that phrase is not found in the «new text» box on this page. That must be an omission? As a general feedback to the draft document page, not specific to 2012-03, I find it preferable if the «original text» and «new text» boxes are made as small as absolutely possible. If the paragraphs that aren't touched by the proposal are kept outside of those boxes, it is much easier to spot the actual changes made, than it is if you include the entire original and new section side-by-side (as is the case with 2012-03's draft document). Taking it one step further, it would be even better if those paragraphs that have only change by a small amount (i.e., aren't completely rewritten) have the actual changes highlighted, e.g., using strikethrough for deleted text, and coloured text for added text (such as the "Within the RIPE NCC service region" added by this proposal). The changes indicated in sections 6.0 and 6.3 at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03/draft are two examples I like. In any case, I support this policy proposal. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

5 7

2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-03, "Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposa 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 24 December 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '12

26 Nov '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 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 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 24 December 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Another small IPv6 allocation policy change proposal (sanity check email)...
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Dear AP-WG ;) Some time ago we come to a consensus to change the IPv6 initial allocation rules and extend the initial allocation size from /32 to whatever between /32 and /29 without additional justification needed. One of the reasons to do that was a reserved space of /29 for each previously allocated /32 and general thinking was "let them use that space that no one else will probably ever use it as it is reserved for holder of /32 at the start of that /29" So far so good, many of you requested the extension to /29 and most of you got it with no issues. But not all of you. We encountered LIRs that are operators and in the past they bought other small operators and joined for example 3 LIRs under one and now they have 3 x /32 (of course with that /29 as reserved space). When those LIRs asked for extension to /29 they received a response from IPRAs, that they can extend to /29 *in total* as written in the policy. The policy says: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of these allocations up to a *total* of a /29 without providing further documentation." So an LIR can extend as many allocations as they want, as long as they never end up with more than a /29 *total* 3x/32 can be extended into 1x/30 + 2x/31 = /29 Alternatively, one /32 can be returned, then both remaining /32s can be extended to a /30. When we were preparing the policy change proposal we did not read that word *total* through the "multiple LIR/32" eyes and I feel that we should somehow correct this. New suggested text would be: "LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request extension of *each* these allocations up to a /29 without providing further documentation." With this email I would like to check if community thinks we should go that route and draft the policy change proposal? Is this something that nobody cares and should not be fixed? Is this a threat to someone? Anyone sees any danger in going forward with this small change? Thank you very much, Jan Zorz

11 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 12 Nov '12

12 Nov '12

As a broker in the IPv4 space, I support 2012-05 100%. We need transparency in transaction pricing. Otherwise there will continue to be black markets and unscrupulous operators. I view my job as finding buyers to match sellers and finding sellers to match buyer needs. Just as in stock markets, commodity markets, and housing markets, IPv4 markets require open pricing. Only then will most people give this market legitimacy and most of the devious behaviour go away. Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness. For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value. Global barriers to trade (think inter-RIR transfers) have to come down so that prices in one part of the world are not different from other parts. Although this is a little off-topic, the use of needs justification is a huge barrier to honest and open trade (as per Milton's workshop in Baku earlier this week). Companies are doing some very creative things to avoid the RIR justification process and as a result the registries are getting less accurate, and the RIR's spout community credos rather than really look at the problem. The good news is these problems should be gone in 50 years when IPv4 is finally replaced by IPv6! Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 09 Nov '12

09 Nov '12

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

*Sander Steffann*wrote<mailto:address-policy-wg%40ripe.net?Subject=Re:%20%5Baddress-policy-wg%5D%20Status%20of%20/24%20PI%20IPv4%20from%20last%20/8&In-Reply-To=%3CA3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88%40steffann.nl%3E>/@ Wed Oct 3 15:17:43 CEST 2012/: Hello Marcin, >/ I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? / You can find the status here:http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 The policy proposal is in the review phase and under discussion until the 8th of October. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair I'm a little lost too. Are we waiting until RIPE66 or was there supposed to be an update on that? regards, Yannis

20 60

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Tore Anderson 08 Nov '12

08 Nov '12

Hi Alex. I'm under the impression that you're the right guy to ask about this, but please do forward this message if appropriate. Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis: «It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.» I'm hereby requesting the details on the transfer mentioned. In particular, I'd like to know the date of the transfer, which specific prefix(es) it involved, and the origin and destination LIRs. I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP. Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

8 15

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012102901001081] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Dear Emilio, Thank you for proposal. I write to oppose the pending proposal to publish a record of all transfers conducted under the policy. For example, on stock market no one publish who sold and who bought shares. I think for safety reason. For analyse enought anonymous statistical information about transfers. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom 29.10.2012 20:27 - Emilio Madaio написал(а): Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-05 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The main changes in the new version are: -use of a bullet point layout for the proposal text; -anonymous reports of non-approved transfers. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: [1]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: [2]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 12 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft

8 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

If you have PI you should have agreement with your sponsoring LIR (or RIPE NCC) and with several providers (taking into consideration multihoming). If all of them (wrongly assumed as "either" by you) choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans won't work. What's the difference then with assigned PA block? Alexey Ivanov tried to say that there are several LIRs that are not providers and their MAIN business is provide numbers (IPs, ASns...). They are of the same reliability as sponsoring LIRs and won't leave you without their service, because they want your money. More than that - there MANY providers, LIRs, carriers... which gives you enormous possibilities to change any of the party without any problem. No business harm at all. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:40 PM To: Piotr Strzyzewski Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > Yes, you can. ;-) > > Please make your mind about your arguments. You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Nick, while there is no IP addresses some alternative is better than no alternative at all. You plan for the "may future" and forget about "need now". I don't see any problem with changing PA LIR in case of problems with old one (PI=small block), changing the transit provider for PI also need some DB work, new agreements with new providers and so on. The job has to be done and in modern situation there is no way out of this culprit. For the shining and undoubtful future - the only way is IPv6. Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:46 PM To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 13:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > /24 PA works excelent for multihome. I have a lot examples. I'm sure it does, until the day that the end user gets into contractual problems with the PA LIR and wants to move transit provider, but can't do so easily because they lose the addresses. PI == provider independent. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by George Giannousopoulos 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hello all, I agree that the three months limitation has to go.. However, I also believe that the period for allocations and assignments should be equal Best regards On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

3 2

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Last Call for Comments has ended. After the feedback received, a new draft (3.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community comments. The highlights of the changes in response of the community's request include: -use of the hyphen for "sub-domain". The Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to extend the Last Call period until 19 November 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this new version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 19 November 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Roger Jørgensen 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: <snip> > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. I support the proposal and the "fast-tracking" as discussed by others. -- 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] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Tore Anderson 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

Hi, I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs. * Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. I have a small nit to pick with the impact analysis, which says: The allocation and assignment periods will no longer be three months. Said periods will become: [...] - For assignments: 24 months. That is not what the proposal says. It makes no mention of 24 months anywhere. What it does say, is: Assignments’ immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. Therefore, if the end user's usage is increasing exponentially over time, his maximum assignment period will be less than 24 months. On the other hand, if the end user's usage is increasing at a slower and slower pace over time, his maximum assignment period will be longer than 24 months. In any case, the text in question is the exact same as it used to be before Run Out Fairly was implemented. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

6 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012102901001081] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]
by James Blessing 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On 31 October 2012 10:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info(a)leadertelecom.ru> wrote: >> but the information about the transfers is derivable from the RIPE DB > > Yes, but this database too much ditry information and very difficult analyse > it. If you will secure something - you can place it in safe place, but more > effective way to put it in public with different information :-) So you are agreeing that publishing the information about transfers is a good idea to make it easier to see transfers being made? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

2 1