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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Sergey Myasoedov 21 May '12

21 May '12

Regarding using last /8 for PI assignments, this proposal looks fair to me. -- Sergey Monday, May 7, 2012, 4:18:52 PM, you wrote: EM> Dear Colleagues, EM> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation EM> and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now EM> available for discussion. EM> You can find the full proposal at: EM> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 EM> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to EM> <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. EM> Regards EM> Emilio Madaio EM> Policy Development Officer EM> RIPE NCC

3 2

FYI: ICANN News Alert -- Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
by Jaap Akkerhuis 16 May '12

16 May '12

This might be of some interest for this group. jaap ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15may12-en.htm ____________________________________ Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA 15 May 2012 The ICANN Board has ratified the Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA as sent by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Council to the ICANN Board on 13 March 2012. The proposal was posted for public comment from 14 March 2012 through 4 April 2012, during which time no comments were submitted. The Global Policy allows the Regional Internet Registries to return IPv4 address space to an IANA-managed pool from which equal parts will be allocated to all five RIRs in a deterministic manner on a regular schedule, once triggered. (http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-pos…). ICANN staff will be taking all necessary steps to implement the Global Policy.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 15 May '12

15 May '12

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 > If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block. I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. Could someone please try to enlighten me? -- Jan

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Chris 10 May '12

10 May '12

hi! On 05/10/2012 02:49 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 i believe the current policy allowing intra-rir-transfers from lir to lir under identical provisions as regular allocations is just and the way to go. as mentioned before, i also don't regard the attempts to pirate the ip-commons as legitimiate, and this proposal's only effect seems to be to make the anticipated 'owned-ip-product' more attractive than the 'competing product'. i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. regards, Chris

2 1

2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 10 May '12

10 May '12

Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 7 June 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Remco Van Mook 09 May '12

09 May '12

<all hats off> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. Now, we have a number of new realities: - final /8 applies to all v4 address space when it kicks in, including space that gets returned later; - It also applies to v4 address space that has not been allocated or assigned by RIPE NCC at that date; - An additional 'special case' block was set aside for IXPs. This all impacts, in a positive or negative way, how much future there is in our final /8 policy. I'd like to think that we made a well-considered decision back then, and if we're going to make a fundamental change like this one I'd like to see some numbers in an impact analysis. Based on current distribution, how much space do we anticipate will fall under the final /8 policy, how much of it will be allocated in /22 PA and how much will be allocated in /24 PI? Given the 'one size fits nobody' nature of the final /8 policy, this would be about the number of allocations/assignments done so far, not the size. Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with a broken internet that, surprise, we won't be managing any more. Breaking IPv4 might lead to increased IPv6 adoption, but not on the internet as we know it today. Everybody who wants to connect his organisation to the internet is going to need at least some IPv4 address space for the time being, so why screw it up for new entrants? Finally, I would like to hear how this proposal correlates to the charge for PI space - the good old 2007-01 chestnut. For post-depletion LIRs, the grapes would be quite sour if one could pick up a quarter of the available resources for about one twentieth of the price. Should "Final /8 PIv4" have a separate price tag? Best Remco 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.

10 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by chrish＠consol.net 09 May '12

09 May '12

hi! On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed. furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the proposed changed policy. i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and according to need distribution of ip-space. as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse consequences). i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the target lir. regards, Chris

3 2

2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 09 May '12

09 May '12

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 june 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Julien Rabier 09 May '12

09 May '12

Le 07 mai à 16:18, Emilio Madaio a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. Hello, I support this proposal. Julien

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Erik Bais 08 May '12

08 May '12

> You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 May 2012. I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough? 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's ) I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. Regards, Erik Bais

6 6