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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by McTim 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

Hi all, In general, I'm not sure what a transfer policy will accomplish that can't already be done by an EU org becoming an ARIN (for example member). Lots of orgs in the EU are already members of other RIRs. Obviously, it will enable the authors company to do more business, but I'm not sure that is a compelling reason to adopt this policy proposal. In general, I am opposed to the notion of monetising IP address blocks, a la domain names. For the moment, i think I would not be in support of this proposal. I am willing to be persuaded however. I'm not too happy with the word "sold" or the 15 months limit. If this gets support, I would rather the word "transfer" be used and the limitation on transfer be more like 36 months. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 4/2/12, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > 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/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > >

3 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Sascha Lenz 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Hi all, > > 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/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > > i'm not really convinced right now about the proposal text (i do support the general idea though). My main concern is : "1. The IPv4 addresses will be used for business purposes and will not be sold within 15 months." Why on earth should only "business purposes" be a valid reason for acquiring legacy IP space by that policy? I don't like that wording. Why aren't NCOs or similar considered here? I come from a time where there wasn't any business on the internet, and i still like to think about all those non-commercial organizations out there (someone has to?). I guess, that's just a wording problem though no one really thought about it - or is this really intentionally? Or did i just get something wrong here? => I don't support the proposal with the CURRENT wording (or someone explain it to me) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 02/04/2012 15:39, Marco Schmidt wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ This proposal contains the following statement: > Hence there is a significant over-supply of IPv4 in North America versus > the rest of the world. In a global economy, membership in any particular > RIR should not be a barrier to acquiring IPv4 Addresses when the source > is not within the same RIR region. I'm not going to argue about the amount of address space allocated within continental north america, but just point out that a policy of this form will apply equally for exchanging address space in+out of the afrinic region - which has the least well developed internet infrastructure, the greatest deficit of ip addresses and the longest expected exhaustion time. If it happens that the net movement of IP address is out of the afrinic area and towards the rest of the world, then the infrastructural deficit in Africa will be even more disadvantaged than it currently is. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by boggits 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 2 April 2012 14:39, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ 1. Document does not make it clear about what happens if an LIR changes its policy in regards to reciprocity (i.e. does the policy stop at that instant, are existing transfers completed, are any transfers reversed, etc) 2. IP addresses can't be 'sold' (if they can I'd like to buy some) surely this should be transfered. Why a 15 month window? 3. There appears to be no clear definition of what an acceptable reverse policy should be 4. The policy doesn't make clear who the end point of the transaction are, two LIRs, two endusers (one of each) I'll read it again and I'm sure there will be more questions J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '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/2012-01/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 22 Mar '12

22 Mar '12

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA in March 2012. 59392-60415 60416-61439 198656-199679 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 - proposal ended the Review phase
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Dear AP WG... While the chairs are evaluating the recent discussion as per PDP, for clarification, the remarks you made were identified and taken into consideration under other circumstances out of the scope of 2011-04. In the last ml posts some remarks on some side issues came up. I hope that we clearly explained that those issues were out of the scope of the current proposal and also kindly offer to take on them in another settings - and as I see in draft APWG meeting agenda I was somehow "volunteered" to start with some live discussion in Ljubljana around possibility of reviewing the additional IPv6 allocation policy. Please, have in mind, that that does not mean, that I'll necessarily review the policy - that means that at that slot on stage I'll try to ask some questions and we need a clear response or statement from community if there is a need to review that policy - and if yes, to form a group of interested people to do the work. We can also start this discussion before the meeting in Ljubljana in order to have some initial ideas where to go and what is the current "heat" in the group. Cheers from more and more "hot and springy" Slovenia, Jan Zorz

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: New Draft Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". A draft of the policy document is now online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… It was decided in the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE 63 that, in light of current policy discussions and proposed changes to the IPv6 policy framework, the RIPE NCC will put its review of the IPv6 policy documents (ripe-512, ripe-451, ripe-233) on hold. We encourage you to read the edited draft of ripe-302 and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> by 17 April 2012. Kind Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

APWG meeting at RIPE 64 - draft agenda 1
by Gert Doering 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Ljubljana in the following two time slots: Wednesday, Apr 18, 09:00 - 10:30 Thursday, Apr 19, 09:00 - 10:30 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. 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 - Emilio Madaio - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE63 [list of things that the WG chairs collective agrees on] - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Alex le Heux E. What Is Consensus? Lessons learned from past policy proposals (APWG chairs) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2011-04 extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 initial allocations 2011-05 safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K. IPv4 maintenance policy - Rob Blokzijl L. On IPv6 PI/PA Unification - update, discussion (APWG chairs) M. Discussion of open policy proposals, part II (if needed) N. Revisit IPv6 "additional allocation" policy (people on the list expressed unhappiness with the current policy, so please speak up! - Discussion led by Jan Zorz) 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." Z. AOB

1 0

2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 06 Mar '12

06 Mar '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2 As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process. The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 3 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0