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

Election for Seat on the NRO Number Council (NRO NC)
by Axel Pawlik 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, Tomorrow, 18 October, an election will take place to fill one seat for the RIPE NCC service region on the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC). The winning candidate will begin a three-year term on the NRO NC from 1 January 2014. Voting is open to anyone in attendance at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens and it will take place from 08:45 – 10:45 on Friday morning. There will be a voting station at the Meet and Greet desk, just outside Ballroom II + III. All attendees will be offered a voting slip and should give their completed voting slip to the election officer at the voting station. The three candidates standing for election are: - Alain Bidron - Sander Steffann - Filiz Yilmaz The candidates’ biographies are available at: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/internet-tech… Candidates will also make a brief statement in support of their candidacy at the NRO/RIR Reports session, which take place on Friday from 09:00 – 10:30 (UTC +3). Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Erik Bais 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 +1 on the proposal. Erik Bais A2B Internet B.V.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Tore Anderson 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

So I spent my time in the air en route to Athens today reading through 2013-06 again, and have some more comments - one significant, the rest editorial. Significant first. Section 5.3.1: says «When more than a /48 is to be sub-allocated to the same customer, the LIR or the End User (via the Sponsoring LIR) must request an approval from the RIPE NCC.» Before, NCC approval was only mandatory for assignments shorter than a /48 per *End Site*. So if I'm reading the proposed policy correct, a customer that has >1 sites would need NCC approval if he wanted a /48 for each of them. I don't think we should do that. Editorial improvements (please keep in mind though that I'm not a native English speaker so my «gut feeling» about these may well be completely wrong and should be ignored): Section 5.6.2: «These assignments have been transformed automatically by the RIPE NCC in IPv6 allocations.» - "transformed" -> "converted" - "in" -> "to" Section 5.6.2: «End Users holding an allocation lower than a /32» - "an allocation" -> "allocations" - "lower" -> "smaller" Tore

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sebastian Wiesinger 14 Oct '13

14 Oct '13

* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> [2013-09-19 16:48]: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal > described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) > are edited and published. I support this proposal. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

9 10

Re: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
by Dmitriy Zemlyanoy 10 Oct '13

10 Oct '13

We also support PI to PA changing. Пользователь Andrea Cima <andrea(a)ripe.net> писал: > >Dear colleagues, Following the increasing number of requests from LIRs that want to convert their PI assignments into PA allocations, we proposed the following options at RIPE 66: 1) Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA allocations (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size) 2) Do not allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA allocations After RIPE 66, the discussion was continued on the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List. There seemed to be a lot of support for allowing LIRs to change the status of their resources, but people also wanted the minimum allocation size to be disregarded. This would allow for PA allocations smaller than the minimum allocation size. It is our understanding that this last point would require a policy change. We will be addressing this as part of our "Feedback From RIPE NCC Registration Services" presentation at RIPE 67. Based on the feedback we receive from here, we will work with the Working Group Chairs on a way forward. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC >On 10/9/13 1:34 AM, ksyu(a)netassist.ua wrote: > >Hello everybody > >I would like to draw attention of the public to the next moment . >According to the RIPE policy, a PI network should be used only as it was assigned. However, the time comes, the amount of clients increases, the number of services is growing up, and v4 addresses are not assigned any more. >What should provider do in this case? The network was assigned for the particular service and can't be used for other services? Just returned back . But no one in their right mind will do this ) . >It may be a topical solution for this situation - to return the opportunity to transfer PI blocks into the PA? >This will give the opportunity to breathe more freely, not to violate the rules of RIPE policy . >I suggest to discuse the question of transference of PI blocks to PA, and invite all caring to speak on the matter. > > >  Best regards, Kseniya Sokol >

1 0

New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
by ksyu＠netassist.ua 10 Oct '13

10 Oct '13

Hello everybody I would like to draw attention of the public to the next moment . According to the RIPE policy, a PI network should be used only as it was assigned. However, the time comes, the amount of clients increases, the number of services is growing up, and v4 addresses are not assigned any more. What should provider do in this case? The network was assigned for the particular service and can't be used for other services? Just returned back . But no one in their right mind will do this ) . It may be a topical solution for this situation - to return the opportunity to transfer PI blocks into the PA? This will give the opportunity to breathe more freely, not to violate the rules of RIPE policy . I suggest to discuse the question of transference of PI blocks to PA, and invite all caring to speak on the matter. Best regards, Kseniya Sokol

10 15

RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-07 - Effect on ripe-592
by Marco Schmidt 10 Oct '13

10 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We just published a new version of RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-07, “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders” to the RIPE NCC Services Working Group mailing list. One aspect of this policy proposal is that it contains a small amendment to the existing policy document ripe-592, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". Policy Proposal 2012-07 proposes to replace section 5.5 of ripe-592, currently: "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." with "Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry System." This change is proposed to ensure that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-07 is in alignment with ripe-592. If RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-07 is accepted by the RIPE community, it would result in a new policy for legacy Internet resources and a small change to the the existing RIPE Policy ripe-592. As an existing policy would be impacted by this policy proposal, we would like to notify the Address Policy Working Group. You can find the full policy proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 If you wish to participate on the discussion, then we encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> by 8 November 2013. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Ronny Boesger [ISPpro Internet KG] 09 Oct '13

09 Oct '13

we support 2013-03 also +1 best regards, ronny -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen / kind regards, Ronny Boesger --- ISPpro Internet KG Lahnsteiner Strasse 7 07629 Hermsdorf Germany

4 4

Fwd: Clean up of old ASN references in the RIPE Database
by Denis Walker 09 Oct '13

09 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, A first batch of emails has now been sent out for this project. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Clean up of old ASN references in the RIPE Database Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:12:21 +0200 From: Denis Walker <denis(a)ripe.net> Organization: RIPE NCC To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is starting to clean up references to returned AS Numbers in the RIPE Database, as discussed on the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List. The first batch of emails will be sent out today to the maintainers of the referencing objects. For details please see https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/making-more-16-bit-as-numbers-available Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Gert Doering 09 Oct '13

09 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:36:24PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 This is "the big IPv6 revolution thing" I promised you somewhat over two years ago :-) - unification of PA and PI into "just numbers, no colours". As I never found time to actually write the specific policy document, it stalled, until these three brave volunteers took over and spent *quite* some amount of discussion and word-smithing to come up with what should be a much easier and cleaner IPv6 policy, without changing the underlying spirit ("who needs addresses gets some"), but removing some of the artificial strings ("addresses of this colour must not be used to do X, for that, you need more expensive ones"). It's a big change, and it's radical, but it's what you asked for when being presented with the idea :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

19 77