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

Re: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
by Dmitriy Zemlyanoy 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

RIPE 67 is ended. Just wondering if you have any updates? > 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

6 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)
by Gert Doering 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-05, > "No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers" > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 October 2013. The review phase for this proposal is now over. On the list, there have been 8 voices of support, and no opposition (it was also presented at the RIPE67 meeting in Athens, and did not see opposition there either). I take this as consensus, and we'll move the proposal to Last Call now. 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

1 0

2013-06 Discussion Period extended until 26 November 2013 (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Oct '13

28 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space", has been extended until 26 November 2013. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

16-bit ASNs
by Tassos Chatzithomaoglou 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Regarding the return of 16-bit ASNs to RIPE, do you think it would be possible to make it in an automated way? i.e. create a web page where ASN owners can declare their willingness to keep or return the ASN they own; then contact just the returners. Assuming a good percentage of owners gives an answer (whether positive or negative), then it'll be made more clear how many of these unknown-state 16-bit ASNs is actually unknown. I don't know if there is any estimation from previous communication, if there is actually any success on giving back ASNs. -- Tassos

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Gert Doering 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:44:38PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > 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. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. The review phase for 2013-03 ended last Friday, as announced by Marco. We have seen very strong support from the community, and some opposition. Without going into a full summary of who said what, this is one of the proposals that received most support of all that ever went into PDP, so even with the opposing voices left, we'd normally go on to declare (rough) consensus here and move to Last Call. Unfortunately, there is a bit more to this proposal than the pure textual changes to the policy text. It has been brought to the WG chairs' attention that the way the "outside world" looks at our policy processes and whether our self-regulation works or not is also influenced by the title of the policy proposal ("no need - ...") and the supporting notes, which are not signalling clearly enough that the RIPE community still wants fair distribution of addresses, as far as this can be achieved after runout, and is not going for a full open market. To avoid unneccessary troubles due to interpretation of text that is not part of the "core proposal", the proposer (Tore Anderson) has agreed to work together with Malcolm Hutty in rewriting the supporting text, and drop the "no need" string from the title. The policy text itself, that you expressed your support for, will remain unchanged(!). When that is done, the proposal will undergo another - hopefully short - impact analysis by the RIPE NCC, and come back to a new review phase here on the AP list. (I stated this as our intention at last week's APWG meeting already, but here's the formal statement from the chair on the list :-) ) 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

1 0

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