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

2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Emilio Madaio 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

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

1 0

2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

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: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: 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 0

IGF session on IP address policy
by Milton L Mueller 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there will be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring a global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself and Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session discussion of the topic the next day. The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series of panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured, multi-stakeholder deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will test the extent to which the various stakeholders interested in that issue can come to agreement on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4 number resources. The five policy issues we will discuss are: the role of needs assessment in market trades; the status of legacy number block holders; the accuracy of post-transaction records; aggregation policies market power For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise position formulated on the spot. The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will facilitate remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US Eastern time, and 3 hours ahead of Continental European time. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

1 0

Seen this?: (Was: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1)
by Ondřej Surý 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

Hi, seems like it has begun... :( (I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...) I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected. Regards, Ondrej Sury Begin forwarded message: > From: "IP Brokerage" <info@anonymized-don't-want-to-spread-contact-me-offlist-if-you-need-original> > Subject: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1 > Date: 17. října 2012 18:52:24 GMT+02:00 > Reply-To: info@xxx > > Confidential For: XXXXXXXXX > > We are contacting you to participate in a bidding process for the lease or potential sale of IPv4 address space. IPv4 is transitioning and will soon be replaced by IPv6. We encourage you to take this opportunity to monetize your IPv4 assets before they become obsolete. > > RxxxMxxxxx_IP is currently seeking to enter into direct lease agreements for large netblocks of currently unused IP space. We pay market lease rates via wire transfer and are accustomed to closing transactions quickly. Our lease of your IP space will be governed by a customary Service Level Agreement (SLA) and no abusive practices will be permitted or tolerated. References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request. > > Leasing your excess IPv4 space allows you to generate income, while retaining ownership of your IPv4 allocations for future use or ultimate sale. > > If your organization (XXXXXXXX) has an underperforming IPv4 subnet, such as -1.-1.-1.-1 or some other range of any size, and you are interested in monetizing this asset immediately, for any duration or terms, please contact me or complete the RFP (request for proposal) questionnaire below and return it to my attention at info@xxxxxx. > > Thank you for your participation in our RFP process, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > I am interested in monetizing my IPv4 Assets: > > > Company Name: > Size or number of IPs available for lease: > Identify Range (CIDR): > email: > Phone number: > Proposed start date for lease: > > > RxxxMxxxx_IP is also actively engaged in buying and selling IP address space. Please let us know if this is of interest to you as well. > > John Blank > Business Development > RxxxMxxxxx_IP > Of . xxx.xxx.xxx > Sk . xxxxxx > -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Sergey Myasoedov 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity. There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough. Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote: SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 >>PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*. -- Sergey

3 2

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Hello, We very specialised company. We kind in niche in Russia. As I calculated we are 2-nd by size LIR by count of sponsored PI-networks, for example. So, it’s only small number of companies need this changes? > >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide > this Ps. They will give us this work. > Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? While main business in telecom. And they wont sell IPs. Just ask LIRs - who can provide IPs? I’ve already answered your last question. According to the initial provisions: if a LIR doesn’t have people, or salespersons, or wishes, or time, or everything else to distribute IPs –then I’m in doubt the company will got the abovementioned things to bother to suballocate. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! No, not enought. IPs will be reselled, but without registration in RIPE. Would you like it? I think better give instrument for comunity for simple distribution IPv4. In other cases you can forget about whois. If it will be impossible to register changes - then you will see old information. It is possible to register changes. It will be possible to register changes. Reselling without registering to RIPE would led to dealing with all network problems by registered company, which is not very productive in the modern black-and-white listing world. By the way – now (I know that very well) there are several companies that already use this cheating (for several reasons) and they did this thing for several years to now even at that time (when they began) there was no IP exhaustion. And what? The RIR-LIR-EU system is here and works well. >> … If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Ok. But what about current transfers? They are “needs based” and you pay for service (mostly once). Regards, Vladislav

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by James Blessing 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: > You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single downstream > Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a /24. > This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that > allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a > downstream network operator. Okay So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further sub-allocations? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

12 20

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Oct '12

16 Oct '12

>> I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? > We LIR. We need sub-allocation to allocate IP-networks to our clients (ISP). You are not the only LIR! >>You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? >We specialised on IPs. Just one of the best service regards IP addresses. Fast and good price. This is reason why ISP goes to us and work with us. I’m not sure that you are right. My company is also a LIR and serve our customers without problems. In Russia there a a lot of LIRs and I don’t think you are the only “right” and “kind” company on the market. >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide this IPs. They will give us this work. Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? >>If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. >What special do you see in using IP space by another LIR? I just see in nearest future. While people have demand and we can make rules and regulate it. Or think that market not exist and we will see what happend... Because LIR is not for using – it is for distributing! Market, market… I’m not afraid of market – we are living in market all life. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! >> I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC > >made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are > >not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least > >in Russia)! >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. URL: http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/ <http://www.leadertelecom.nl/> - IP- addresses URL: http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl <http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl> - WildCard SSL certificates 15.10.2012 14:31 - написал(а): Dear Alexey, I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least in Russia)! Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:56 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is not just "may". It is real case. Permanenent transfer cost 10USD per 1 IP. It is too high. We won't pay this money. We ready pay monthly. It this case the best way to give legal IPs for us - make "sub allocation". But we have restricion in policy - another LIR can sub-allocate only /20 every twelve months. This is too small size. While we need assign now in several times more. And as soon as we will assign this space - we will receive additional requests, but the same supplier by current policy can't give us additional networks while he can do it only one time in twelve months. About "may" - it was an example when can be sub-allocated all space. While Gert Doering wrote about this case. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 14:51 - написал(а): And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl <mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl> ] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Randy Bush 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

>> i have given multi-year loans, admittedly not transfers as they did not >> exist at the time, a number of times. i have space out on loan now. > > What records did you use for that? I mean "Assigned PA", > "Sub-allocated PA", etc? And how many IPs? as the space is not in the ripe region, with 39 flavors of integers, your question is not answerable. randy

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '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 Review Phase for this document has ended. After the feedback received, the Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to move into the Last Call period for comments. This period will last until 26 October 2012. We encourage you to read this merged version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 26 October 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Sander Steffann 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Hi, > Lets check RIPE-530: > > > Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a > > permanent or non-permanent basis. > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of > > the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. > > For temporary transfer we make 2 transfers: 1. from LIR A to LIR B. .... 2. Form LIR B to LIR A (back). While address space may not transfer it on within 24 months, so we can't transfer back earlier than in 2 years. Ah, there is the misunderstanding. Giving back the address space is not a separate transfer. It's part of the original (temporary) transfer. This rule is only to prevent people from selling addresses on. - Sander

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

6 11

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

>For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
by Octavio Alfageme 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear all, According to RIPE552 LIRs may easily request the extension of its IPv6 /32 initial allocation up to a /29. However, if we take a look at the reservation made for some initial /32 allocations, we find that it is /30. For instance (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest): ripencc|FR|ipv6|2a00:7900::|32|20110214|allocated ripencc|NL|ipv6|2a00:7940::|32|20120118|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7980::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|DE|ipv6|2a00:79c0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|NO|ipv6|2a00:7a00::|32|20110120|allocated ripencc|GB|ipv6|2a00:7a40::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|AT|ipv6|2a00:7a80::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7ac0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|ES|ipv6|2a00:7b00::|32|20110214|allocated In case any of this LIRs wants to request the extension to /29, would he receive a 'brand new' /29 and will have to give its original /32 back? I would be grateful if you could clarify me the process. No need to say that my company is one of the LIRs affected by this situation. Kind regards Octavio Alfageme

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
by pooranmittal 06 Oct '12

06 Oct '12

Hi, Myself Pooran Mittal, member of APNIC [IMCL-IN] with AS 17665. How RIPE can help me to get IPV4 addresses. Please help me. Regards Pooran Mittal ----- Original Message ----- From: <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4 > 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: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 2. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Sander Steffann) > 3. Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and > simple re-using IP-addresses (James Blessing) > 4. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Richard Hartmann) > 5. 2012-06 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced > (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion) (Emilio Madaio) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:20:58 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <506C2DAA.3040509(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/3/12 1:41 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 12:55:53PM +0200, Marcin Kuczera wrote: >>> 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 ??? >> >> "Too controversial to go forward". > > It is a "yes" or "no" question, afaik :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:17:43 +0200 > From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <A3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88(a)steffann.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:01:50 +0100 > From: James Blessing <james.blessing(a)despres.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] > Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAL5RSTKfm-c1O2k3q9jC01u_YK9-Az_7tfTW9DAFpzY04p9xVQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: >> You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single >> downstream >> Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a >> /24. >> This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that >> allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a >> downstream network operator. > > Okay > > So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per > annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further > sub-allocations? > > J > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:15:35 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Cc: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gRkADX31OdFWdT_bt6kwPSo3ZyzNtvAbT-y=75E3Dbg1A(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I can't inline my replies on Android, sorry. > > The official status page is of limited use in this context, but the > official date/timeline _is_ good to be reminded of; thanks. > > PS: I didn't attend and simply stole the 66 from Nick ;) > > Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity. >

2 1

Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Marcin Kuczera 05 Oct '12

05 Oct '12

hello, 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 ??? Regards, Marcin

7 10

2012-06 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Emilio Madaio 04 Oct '12

04 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", 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/2012-06 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by LeaderTelecom B.V. 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Dear Community, Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community. This idea was presented on Address Policy Working Group, Thursday 27 Sep, RIPE 65, Amsterdam. -- Alexey Ivanov Owner & General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. Owner & Managing Director LeaderTelecom B.V.

2 3

Final RIPE 64 APWG Session Minutes
by Emilio Madaio 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes of the RIPE 64 Address Policy Working Group session were approved during RIPE 65. The final minutes are online at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-64 Regards Emilio

2 3

Policy Proposal 2011-05 "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space" implemented
by Radha Ramphul 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IXP IPv4 assignments under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 The updated "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553 IPv4 and IPv6 IXP assignments will now be evaluated using a common request template. You can access the template through the LIR Portal or online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-564 The supporting notes are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-565 If you have any questions, please contact<ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Radha Ramphul Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Wilfried Woeber 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

Before formally submitting my statement of support, I'd like to ask for clarification on the proposed text for 6.3, specifically: " ...this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. " Which party would "define" such "special cicumstances" and which party would review/grant/deny? Thanks, Wilfried

2 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

This proposal makes a lot of sense and I support it. /Ragnar On 03.09.12 15:50, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > >Dear Colleagues > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation >and Assignment Policy 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/2012-06 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ><address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 October 2012. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Tore Anderson stated I am really struggling with this sentence: ?Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation.? The intent is that 24 months should be the the period for all allocations. I will change the wording to: A period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Tore also stated: Another thing I am wondering about, is the new 24 month period. Prior to ?Run Out Fairly?, the period was 12 months. This was determined by 2006-06, which intended to harmonise the need period across the five regions. With that in mind, I would like to see why 24 months was chosen. Is 2006-06's rationale no longer valid? What are the need periods currently used for allocation transfers in the other regions? The need period in the ARIN region is 24 months and the need period in the APNIC region is 12 months. Thanks, Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Thank you for your comments Tore. --------------------------------------------------------------- I support this proposal, but wonder why it specifically refers to LIRs rather than something generic like ?organisations?? That excludes transfers of direct assignments to/from End Users [who are not also LIRs]. In other places, the text refers to ?any IPv4 address space?, which seems to indicate that direct assignments are in scope, too. --------------------------------------------------------------- I am quite willing to change the wording from LIR's to Organizations if all agree. Then all five transfer examples defined by Tore would be allowed. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, an editorial/language feedback: ?Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC, this policy defines the framework that outlines what specific rules apply to IPv4 address space transfers in between the different RIR regions.? --------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Tore's editorial change. This sentence will now read: This policy defines the framework that outlines specific rules which apply to IPv4 address space transfer between the RIR regions. Thank you. Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown(a)ipv4marketgroup.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR > Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October > 2012. I support this proposal, but wonder why it specifically refers to LIRs rather than something generic like «organisations»? That excludes transfers of direct assignments to/from End Users [who are not also LIRs]. In other places, the text refers to «any IPv4 address space», which seems to indicate that direct assignments are in scope, too. While it is the case that the RIPE region currently does not have a transfer policy for assignments, that may change in the future. I don't know about other regions (but obviously policies may change here too). Some hypothetical examples (I am assuming we are not running into any restrictions found in the remote region's transfer policy): 1) A RIPE region LIR wants to transfer and unused IPv4 allocation to an out-of-region End User (who is not a LIR), which will register the prefix in the Destination RIR's database as a direct assignment. 2) Same as #1, but the End User happens to also be a LIR. 3) An out-of-region End User (who is not a LIR), has a unused IPv4 direct assignment he wishes to transfer to a RIPE region LIR, who intend to register the prefix in the RIPE database as ALLOCATED PA. 4) Same as #3, only that the End User happens to also be a LIR. As I understand the proposed policy, #1 and #3 would not be allowed, but #2 and #4 would. Is my understanding correct? Also, assuming that a transfer policy has since been established in the RIPE region covering transfers of direct assignments: 5) Out-of-region End User wants to transfer a direct assignment to a RIPE region End User. Neither are LIRs. This would not be permitted by this policy either, correct? Finally, an editorial/language feedback: «Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC, this policy defines the framework that outlines what specific rules apply to IPv4 address space transfers in between the different RIR regions.» Native speakers please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been taught that if you say «Apart from This, That» in English, the logical interpretation of that statement is "This AND That" (with an emphasis on "That"). It is however fairly clear from reading the rest of the proposal that the intended logical meaning in this case is "not(This) AND That". I don't think it particularly good form to start a policy with a statement of what it *isn't*, so I would suggest simply deleting the entire «Apart from transfers of address space within the service region of the RIPE NCC,» text. It is redundant in any case, as section 1.1 clearly declares in-region transfers as being out of scope. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0