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

2009-06 Proposal Accepted (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Ingrid Wijte 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2009-06 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy document has now been updated, published and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html Note: This document also incorporates the changes coming from the proposal described in 2009-08, IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs, for which consensus was also reached. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html Thank you for your input. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

agenda for upcoming APWG meeting
by Gert Doering 28 Sep '09

28 Sep '09

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in two weeks in Lissabon. This time, we the following three time slots: Wednesday, Oct 7, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, Oct 7, 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday, Oct 8, 14:00 - 15:30 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". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. The agenda is fairly lightly loaded so far, especially for the Thursday time slot, all we have is "if you have something in mind that needs discussion, this is the place to go". So we certainly welcome your input. 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B. Current Policy Topics - Filiz Yilmaz - overview over concluded proposals 2009-05 [multiple IPv6 /32 allocations] - withdrawn 2008-05 [Anycast for ENUM] - accepted 2009-02 [Resources to the RIPE NCC] - accepted - overview over proposals currently in Last Call 2009-06 [Routing Requirements] 2009-07 [global ASN block policy] 2009-08 [IPv6 PI for LIRs] - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) C. Rough Edges of the current policies Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services department on issues and unintended side-effects showing up in the daily implementation of the RIPE policies. (+ brief discussion) D. "Routing Issues" update At RIPE 58, we decided to work together with the routing WG to remove "routing policy" from the address policy documents, and have the routing WG come up with an updated routing recommendation document. This is to briefly summarize what this is all about and point to the document. Discussion should take place in the routing WG. E. Document Cosmetic Surgeries Project - Filiz Yilmaz (separate item from "B.", because it's really a separate activity - and this gives us a bit scheduling flexibility) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- E. New Proposals since RIPE 58 overview about what's coming [5-10 min] F. Discussion of open policy proposals ---- various stuff, not directly related to IPv4 run-out --- 2006-05 PI Assignment Size [?? min] 2008-07 Ensuring Efficient Use of Historical IPv4 Resources (Philip Smith) 2008-08 Initial Certification Policy for PA Space Holders (Nigel Titley, CA TF) 2009-01 Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to RIRs (5 RIR design team) ---- directly related to IPv4 run-out --- 2008-06 Use of Final /8 (Philip Smith) 2009-03 Run Out Fairly (Daniel Karrenberg) 2009-04 IPv4 Allocation and Assignments to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (Alain Bidron) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 12:30-14:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X. Ideas how to tackle any problems that have been experienced by the NCC Registration Services Department. (open discussion, based on the report and comments on Wednesday) 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." (Idea from ARIN policy meeting) Z. AOB -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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 1

2009-03 New Draft Document Published (Run Out Fairly)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Sep '09

28 Sep '09

PDP Number: 2009-03 Run Out Fairly Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-03 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-03.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-471-draft2009-03.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 20 October 2009. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

6 6

2009-07 Proposal Accepted (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
by Filiz Yilmaz 28 Sep '09

28 Sep '09

PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2009-07 has been accepted by the RIPE community. The related RIPE policy document has now been updated, published and can be found at: ripe-480, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-480.html The proposal is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html Please note that this is a global policy and will therefore come into effect only after it has been accepted as a policy in all other RIR regions and then ratified by ICANN. Thank you for your input. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

ripe471 - language query
by David Freedman 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just a quick query w.r.t the ripe471 document relating to a conversation I had with another registry today who were confused by the use of the language: Section 5.3 (Additional Allocations) states: "An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about eighty percent (80%) of all the address space currently allocated to it is used in valid assignments or sub-allocations." Whereas Section 5.4 (Sub Allocations) states: "LIRs are still required to demonstrate about 80% usage for all their allocations." The question is therefore, do we mean: - - That all the address space currently allocated to the registry should be summed and if the registry consumes more than 80% of this they qualify for an additional allocation or - - That all allocations the registry has must each consume more than 80% before the registry qualifies for an additional allocation. and if so, could the language in the document be cleaned up to avoid such ambiguity? Dave. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkq8n74ACgkQtFWeqpgEZrL9tgCfUbDNmABC8AfnJ4YU/Rd1waU0 Ga8Anjd3WAb1cuyQ/xvd0LH9Z9ZAFilo =q7Pd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Decision regarding 2009-08
by Gert Doering 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

Dear address policy WG, one of our policy proposals (2009-08, IPv6 PI assignments for LIRs) has reached the end of the "last call" phase, and is now being discussed among the chairs of all working groups to decide whether the RIPE policy process has been properly followed, and whether consensus has been reached. The APWG chairs have decided that consensus has been reached, but the amount of participation from the WG was small enough that this was a difficult decision. - at the RIPE meeting, there was support for moving in this direction - in the discussion and review phases, there were 3 e-mails stating explicit support. One e-mail stated non-support, but that was referring to another mail with questions about the proposal, so it was a bit unclear on what exactly the "non-support" referred to. - during last call phase, there was exactly 1 (one) e-mail on the list, and that e-mail was a question regarding the proposal. We, as the WG chairs, think that the change proposed is useful to have a more workable policy for "real world" networks. Thus we have decided to move forward, even if the amount of participation was a bit low. In general, we really need to see a few more voices in the various phases - otherwise it's really hard to claim consensus. (Which means that we, as the WG chairs, will have to be a bit more proactive in getting responses out of YOU...). regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 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

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by IP-Office KPN 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

All, I support the general idea of the proposal, but I have some questions: The proposal states that (last paragraph): "If an organisation already received a PI assignment before becoming an LIR, the PI assignment should be returned upon receiving an IPv6 allocation if there are no specific routing requirements to justify both." First question: Only in this last paragraph of the proposal there is mention of "PI assignment" as opposed to "IPv6 assignment". Was this done intentionally? Second question: Is it (therefore) not possible to become a LIR and just keep the PI assignment instead of asking for a IPv6 PA allocation? I can imagine that if an organisation doesn't want to have Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreements with LIRs, instead of entering into a End User Assignment Agreement with RIPE, the organisation wishes to become a LIR (same costs, more service) while wanting to keep the previously assigned PI space (and public AS number). Third question: Also, (just to be sure) as this Policy document exclusively deals with IPv6, does this policy proposal also have impact on the IPv4 PI space an organisation already has when it wants to become an LIR? With kind regards, Andries Hettema nl.kpn-bbt IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office(a)kpn.com

2 1

late comments on 2009-06
by Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom T-Com - TE141-P1 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

Dear colleagues, the last call for 2009-06 is very close to expiring... I'm sorry I'm coming this late with a few comments. I certainly support the the motion to remove from the contraints for routing announcements from the address allocation policy; I voiced my support already at the last RIPE meeting with strong words. I hope that Rob Evans' initiative to draft a document on recommended annoucement practices in IPv6 in routing WG will result in document providing guidance on usage of aggregates, more specifics etc. without unduely stressing the global routing system. Admittedly this will be much harder than the removal of a few words from existing policy text (as 2009-06 does). Recently a potential downside of the removal of routing constraints from allocation policy came to my attention: NCC resource analysts might begin to encourage or even force LIRs to plan to deaggragate announcements when discussing requests for address space. For the record: I'd strongly request that NCC should refrain from doing so until documents giving guidance on appropriate use of deaggregation, or announcements of more specifics have been written and agreed upon. Applying such restraint seems not to require explicit text in the allocation policy - though I can see that NCC using or not using such restraint can in some cases lead to different results in evaluating requests for address space; i.e. some times allocating an additional separate address block when using a more specific out of another allocation might be another way for solving a particular routing requirement. Before closing let me make another nit: I feel quite uncomfortable to see the the second paragraph the impact analysis for fragmentaion/aggregation: it would be better to ONLY have the "we cannot seriously estimate" of the first paragraph than juggle meaningless short sighted numbers. Regards, Ruediger Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom AG -- Internet Backbone Engineering E-Mail: rv(a)NIC.DTAG.DE Phone: +49 251 7985 200 fax: +49 251 7985 109

3 2

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
by Sander Steffann 22 Sep '09

22 Sep '09

Hello again, After my last questions I have only received concrete answers from Michael. He suggested the following: - Use a minimum allocation size of /24 - Determine the maximum allocation size for every LIR based on their run rate - Make no exceptions for cases where it is hard or impossible to downscale Jim asked why we should change the policy at all for the final /8. I hope I have given at least one good reason: new entrants. Michael proposed to leave (further) decisions about the final /8 until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Does this represent the view of the community? I am not sure if people keep quiet because they agree with what has already been said, or because they are still on vacation... Please let us know :) Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

17 39

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Sander Steffann 22 Sep '09

22 Sep '09

Hello everyone, It has been quiet for some time now, so I think we should start to discuss the final /8 proposals again. In part 2 of the discussion, we discussed how many addresses an LIR should be able to get from the final /8. I'll try to summarize that part of the discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong or if I missed something: Most people preferred option b: All requests are downscaled by a certain factor Some people preferred option a: Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block There were comments that IPv4 would never run out, but let's assume that it will run out. In the worst (best?) case we won't need this final /8 policy, so it doesn't hurt to be prepared when we do need it. Because most people preferred option b, let's discuss some of the details to see if we can make that work. If we are going to downscale address space requests, how should we do that? Some issues: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). I would like to leave PI assignments out od the discussion for now. I think we have enough PA related questions to discuss, but don't worry: we will get to the PI discussion later. As before: please stay on topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is :) Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

6 18

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by Flor Paredes 21 Sep '09

21 Sep '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 2/8 and 46/8 from the IANA in September 2009. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size from these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Please also note that several "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. These prefixes are: 2.0.0.0/16, pingable 2.0.0.1 2.1.0.0/21, pingable 2.1.0.1 2.1.24.0/24, pingable 2.1.24.1 46.0.0.0/16, pingable 46.0.0.1 46.1.0.0/21, pingable 46.1.0.1 46.1.24.0/24, pingable 46.1.24.1 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Regards, Flor Paredes Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
by Remco van Mook 17 Sep '09

17 Sep '09

Not everybody is going to run out at the same time because there are likely already LIRs whose assignment rate is so low they'll still have space from their current allocation in 2015 or so - intentional or not. Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thu Sep 17 16:11:53 2009 Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2 > Agree for as long as there are addresses enough to meet the applicants > needs. Yet it is IMHO pointless to hand out micro-blocks as a sorry > response to a PA-request for a substantially larger block. In particular, what if the applicant's competitor just received a much larger allocation two weeks earlier? That's why I think that any policy change related to the last IPv4 allocations should focus on some way to make sure that all LIRs run out of IPv4 at roughly the same time. Maybe the policy change needs to take effect before we reach the last /8 from IANA. Maybe we need some kind of cap on maximum allocation that shrinks month by month. Maybe we should link the allocation size to the number of weeks it would take to use it up given the applicant's historical run-rate, and then shrink that number of weeks every month. > This isn't > about forcing anyone in any particular direction, but about whether it > is of greater benefit to the community at large to allocate > such blocks > to organizations with a potential to enable connectivity between large > numbers of new users and the existing v4 network. Has anyone clearly explained how any organization would enable such connectivity in a way that existing LIRs could not? It sounds like people are assuming that there may be some magic bullet while in reality there are just network providers providing services. The technical details of those services change over time for all LIRs. Innovation is not restricted to new entrants. --Michael Dillon This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

1 0

(no subject)
by Kamil Semavi 11 Sep '09

11 Sep '09

How can I transfer a subnet from one AS to another AS number? Thanks Kamil

1 0

RIPE NCC NRO Number Council Candidates Confirmed
by Axel Pawlik 10 Sep '09

10 Sep '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The nomination period for appointment to the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC) has now closed. This year, in accordance with the Number Resource Organization's Memorandum of Understanding (NRO MoU), the RIPE community will elect one individual to fill the seat that is being vacated by Dave Wilson, who was elected to a three-year term on the NRO NC that began on 1 January 2007. The following candidates have accepted their nomination for the vacant seat on the NRO NC from the RIPE NCC service region: - Dave Wilson The representative elected to the NRO NC seat will serve a three-year term, beginning 1 January 2010. Candidate profiles and information on how to submit an Expression of Support can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2009/confirmed-nominations.html The election to fill this seat will be held at the RIPE 59 Meeting that takes place in Lisbon, Portugal from 5-9 October 2009. For more information about the NRO NC and the selection process, see: http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/nro2008/about-nc.html Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director, RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

>> I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have >> a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only >> world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think >> they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of >> the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this >> might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. > > Fair enough. However this could be solved by the market if > some ISPs offer v4-to-v6 gateway services to customers whose > networks are pure v6. That would mean that a new ISP can only enter the market when buying a service from an existing ISP. I don't know if this would be seen as anti-competitive, but I suspect it will. Especially because we could make policy that prevents (well, significantly postpones) that situation. - Sander PS: I make the assumption here that not everything will be reachable over native IPv6 when the new company wants to start. I think this is a reasonable assumption for the first years at least.

1 0

RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hi Michael, Thank you for your feedback. > ??? > After RIPE runs out of IP addresses, we might be seen as > anti-competitive? I was thinking about making sure that new companies can have a few IPv4 addresses to be able to talk to the IPv4-only world. If we do that, then nobody can complain. If they think they don't have enough addresses, well, so has the rest of the world. If they can't get any IPv4 addresses at all this might be perceived as unfair or anti-competitive. - Sander

2 1

The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1
by Sander Steffann 27 Aug '09

27 Aug '09

Hello again, I'm trying to keep this policy proposal discussion on-topic. We have already discussed two parts, and we should really focus on this third part now. If we keep going back to the beginning we will never get work done... I'll repeat my questions to the list: - If a company demonstrates the need for a /20, we could give them (for example) a /26. Smaller organisations would end up with even smaller amounts of address space. Currently prefixes longer than a /24 can not really be routed on 'the Internet' (for some definition of 'Internet'). Do we expect this to change, or do we have to make the minimum allocation size a /24 so that LIRs receiving address space can use it? - Do we want a maximum allocation size? This might be useful to prevent a few large companies to grab most of the address space, but it might also be unnecessary. - Do we want to make exceptions for certain situations where downscaling is not possible? For example a server farm with many HTTPS sites can't use less IP addresses than the number of websites (with the current protocols). Jim is suggesting that we don't change any policies for the final /8. That would be a downscaling factor of 1. With the current allocation rate of the RIPE NCC (see http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html, graph 28e) that would mean that the final /8 will be allocated in about 4 to 6 months. Michael proposed to hold a meeting to divide the final /8. After that happens a new entrant will not be able to get any IPv4 addresses from the NCC. This might be seen as the established companies (us) trying to prevent new competition... We now have the chance to prevent that situation, and we should make good policies now to prevent that from happening. At least in the first couple of years after IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. We can't just think about the current LIRs. If we do a bad/anti-competitive/etc job here some governments will have a good excuse to take the IP address allocation right away from the RIPE community. They might leave us alone, but do we really want to count on that? Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

3 2

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Michael, sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. Maybe I should apply for a job? > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat quite arrogant by that. RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop soonest possible. We're in internet business - and rely on phys presence. That's ridicilous. Btw: No need to hint for proxy votes - who's trusting opponents? And what are proxy votes good for when not having heard or seen the discussion in before? Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 13:42 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those > > who can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone > > participation doesn't count. Who gets to vote?] > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important enough > to make an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or because > they've already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no > difference. > > > It's also > > incompatible with the current Policy Development Process > > which is based on list-driven, bottom-up consensus. > > The extraordinary general meeting would not be about changing > policy, it would be about an activity plan to divide up the > remaining inventory of IPv4 addresses between the applicants > who have requested a piece of the final /8. > > > > Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little > > motivation > > > to reach a decision and not enough information available > to make a > > > decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market > > > penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. > > > > IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a > > decision. The current policy isn't broken and doesn't need > > fixing. > > This is also a reasonable approach, i.e. I have suggested option > c) but your suggestion of option d) is also worthy of consideration. > > > I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-) > > Perhaps we agree that simply re-evaluating options a) and b) is > not the best way to proceed? > > --Michael Dillon > > >

4 3

AW: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3
by Marcus.Gerdon 26 Aug '09

26 Aug '09

Hi! > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. What's meetings got to do with IPv6 trials? > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. Did you take a look at the v6-dfz before writing this? At a quick glance in Frankfurt I see slightly more v6 downstream asn advertised from 8881 than from 5400. ;-) But enough on that... that's no topic for an apwg discussion. Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Marc Lützenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > michael.dillon(a)bt.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2009 16:35 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3 > > > > sounds like your company is faring rather well... sending at > > least one person to any meeting, just jet'ing for a weeks > > meeting to Dubai... You've supposedly not seen any 'costs > > optimized by reduced staff' guy around for a long time. > > There are dozens of cost optimization guys around, but > the cost of one RIPE extraordinary general meeting doesn't > worry us because we are putting a lot of effort into IPv6 > trials and we can see light at the end of the tunnel. > > Don't ever forget that soon nobody will really NEED IPv4 > addresses any more because IPv6 is a viable alternative. > If your company isn't doing internal trials of IPv6 with > selected customers, then yes, you should probably start > looking for another job. > > > > If some people feel that the meeting is not important > > enough to make > > > an effort to attend, then they don't get a vote. > > > Whether it is because they can't afford to attend or > > because they've > > > already got full IPv6 services on offer, it makes no difference. > > > > I think you're definitely wrong on this - and imho somewhat > > quite arrogant by that. > > > > RIPE's open to anybody, anybody being allowed to become a > > member. But excluding a bunch of members from the meetings by > > sheer cost (or time) is fine for you. The current practice of > > having to be physically on site for a vote has to stop > > soonest possible. > > Please do not criticise my proposal because you disagree with > how RIPE currently functions. If you have a criticism with how > RIPE members vote, please take it to the appropriate venue. If > RIPE does begin to allow remote participation and voting in a > general meeting, that doesn't change my proposal in any way. > > > We're in internet business - and rely on > > phys presence. That's ridicilous. > > It's also ridiculous that we have so little IPv6 deployment that > we have to argue over how to distribute the last few crumbs of > IPv4 addressing. Why does the Internet still rely on this ancient > protocol over 10 years after IPv6 was introduced? > > So, how do you propose to distribute the final /8 fairly? > > --Michael Dillon > >

1 0

2009-06 Last Call for Comments (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
by Ingrid Wijte 25 Aug '09

25 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-06 Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 22 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
by Jeroen Wunnink 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Members, I'd like to re-open the discussion for http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html which is still pending approval. In the current IPv4 address policy, routability on the internet is not a factor that is allowed to be taken into account when a PI space is requested. Yet anything smaller then a /24 is pretty much useless since most providers filter anything below /24 out. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer(a)easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl

22 39

2009-08 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by Ingrid Wijte 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-08 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 17 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Ingrid Wijte 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2008-07 has been extended until 24 August 2009. The text of the policy proposal 2008-07 has been revised. We have published the new version (version 3) today. In the new version, new members, requesting an initial allocation, are also asked about the utilisation and documentation of all address resources they hold, including pre-RIR registrations. In version 2 this was only proposed for additional allocations. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

7 10

2009-08 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs)
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-08 IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2009-08 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-472-draft2009-08.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 August 2009. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
by Ingrid Wijte 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

PDP Number: 2009-07 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-07 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-07.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 16 September 2009. Regards Ingrid Wijte Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

7 6