An interesting policy question
Hi I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy. We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid. The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view: First one: Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment? Second one: Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR? So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR? What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then? -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Lu, Thank you for the question. Regarding what we would do under the old policies — it’s very difficult for us to speculate how hypothetical examples would have been evaluated under outdated processes that we no longer follow. For this reason, we are unable to indicate how we would have handled these requests before the current policies were adopted. On a more general note, it is important to be aware that the current "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" states: "Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid. [...] Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649#4 This means that any change to the registration data must be reflected in the RIPE Database, and it is the LIR that is responsible for maintaining this. The RIPE NCC regularly confirms the correctness of the registration data with audits (ARC reviews), during additional allocation requests, or on request by a member. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC On 03/12/2015 12:26, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
First one:
Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment?
Second one:
Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Andrea: Thank you for responds. Although this question posted here was asking community opinion to help future understand an important element in our policy history. "Need based IP distribution". Since current policy does not have it anymore, an official responds from NCC was not expected. And if my fellow colleague here has an opinion on this interpretation of "need" as well as the two examples I was given, enlighten me your thought, would really appreciated. On 3 Dec 2015, at 5:19 PM, Andrea Cima <andrea@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Lu,
Thank you for the question.
Regarding what we would do under the old policies — it’s very difficult for us to speculate how hypothetical examples would have been evaluated under outdated processes that we no longer follow. For this reason, we are unable to indicate how we would have handled these requests before the current policies were adopted.
On a more general note, it is important to be aware that the current "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" states:
"Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid. [...] Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649#4
This means that any change to the registration data must be reflected in the RIPE Database, and it is the LIR that is responsible for maintaining this. The RIPE NCC regularly confirms the correctness of the registration data with audits (ARC reviews), during additional allocation requests, or on request by a member.
Best regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
On 03/12/2015 12:26, Lu Heng wrote: Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
First one:
Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment?
Second one:
Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 06:21:27PM +0100, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
And if my fellow colleague here has an opinion on this interpretation of "need" as well as the two examples I was given, enlighten me your thought, would really appreciated.
If the customer just moves the same amount of stuff from A to B without anything changing hands or a reduction in the number of machines/services, *need* will still be satisfied. But Andrea has raised a significant point here: if *documentation* is not updated, the assignment is no longer valid, as that is a strict requirement (both for direct PI assignments and for PA-through-LIR assignments, it was not clear from your e-mail which sort you are referring to). Assuming PI, and assuming you are talking about the RIPE NCC making assignments ("Ripe" can not make assignments, as that's the policy-making community, read: all of us), I'm fairly sure the e-mail that contains the actual network that has been assigned clearly contains that requirement, to always keep the documentation up to date. Now, answerung to your second example: if you documented need for 3 locations, and part of that documentation contained something like "we need to upgrade the assignment size to a /24 to handle routing requirements, but we really only have 3 hosts on each site" - and then you move everything to one location, the original criteria would *not* apply any longer, as a single /24 would perfectly well serve to number these combined 9 hosts plus the routing requirements. So, individual cases are different (and I fully trust the NCC to understand the fine nuances, and to apply pain where necessary). 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
Hi Gert: Thank you for insight and detailed reply. (All the discussion below are about an latency policy element *need*, does not imply current Ripe policy in anyway) On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 06:21:27PM +0100, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
And if my fellow colleague here has an opinion on this interpretation of "need" as well as the two examples I was given, enlighten me your thought, would really appreciated.
If the customer just moves the same amount of stuff from A to B without anything changing hands or a reduction in the number of machines/services, *need* will still be satisfied.
But Andrea has raised a significant point here: if *documentation* is not updated, the assignment is no longer valid, as that is a strict requirement (both for direct PI assignments and for PA-through-LIR assignments, it was not clear from your e-mail which sort you are referring to).
To best of my understanding, "documentation" here means whois database, as long as whois database has been updated with relevant update, no second proof was needed from Ripe NCC for the same assignment, correct me if I was wrong.
Assuming PI, and assuming you are talking about the RIPE NCC making assignments ("Ripe" can not make assignments, as that's the policy-making community, read: all of us), I'm fairly sure the e-mail that contains the actual network that has been assigned clearly contains that requirement, to always keep the documentation up to date.
I fully understand the difference between the NCC and the community, sorry for the confusion here.
Now, answerung to your second example: if you documented need for 3 locations, and part of that documentation contained something like "we need to upgrade the assignment size to a /24 to handle routing requirements, but we really only have 3 hosts on each site" - and then you move everything to one location, the original criteria would *not* apply any longer, as a single /24 would perfectly well serve to number these combined 9 hosts plus the routing requirements.
Sorry for misunderstanding, my intended example was, to be more detail, a /24 was proofed for any cast in 3 locations for DNS(so one /24 was proofed), during the evaluation process, evidence of existence of infrastructure of 3 locations are all provided, later after approval, management decided that 2 location would be enough for its need to reach customers, so it decided to shinrk amount of location to 2, while the service provided and the customer served was not changed, so the need of a /24 is not changed as well, my questions is, does such action considered "change of purpose of use" and invalid the assignment therefore need approval from NCC for the action before process? So the bottom line is, what does *need* mean? Does it means the whole package of justification material(so including everything submitted during the evaluation process for the assignment, including but not limit to the upstream's contract, location of the server, etc), or does it means the *service* was provided, LIR can free justify it's own infrastructure(e.g. move server from DC A to DC B to improve speed) to provide same service to the same customer group? Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then by definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of the server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the assignment again therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the infrastructure adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have assignment window), because the need has changed. I recently had this policy discussion with some RIR personnels and getting really confused, so that's the reason I come to the community to seek clarification for the understanding this very important piece of history. And I do believe documented clarification and discussion in the list for this important historical element will help future generation understand the policy better(me included). And thanks again Gert for the time and explanation.
So, individual cases are different (and I fully trust the NCC to understand the fine nuances, and to apply pain where necessary).
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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Lu,
Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then by definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of the server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the assignment again
It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the first place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then you can't just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't part of the condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are completely dependent on the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have any needs criteria anymore so this is all hypothetical.
therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the infrastructure adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have assignment window), because the need has changed.
Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about situations and concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region... Let's stop this discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy. Cheers, Sander
Hi Lu,
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to current policy development?
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
RIPE NCC only would assign provider independent resources. To LIRs RIPE NCC would allocate resources and then verify policy requirements, such as need, when the LIR makes assignments from the allocation.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
I am not going into the details of your examples as they are no longer relevant to current policy development. In general: assignments are quite specific. As an LIR you assign resources to your own infrastructure or a specific customer. Whenever any of that changes (i.e. customers changing, expansion of networks etc) it would be considered a new assignment which would require new justification (need etc). So the correct thing to do in the database (to keep things a bit relevant) would be to delete the old assignments and create new ones. That would keep the history nice and clean (old object would be for the old assignment, new object with new creation date would be for the new assignment). Cheers, Sander
Hi On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Lu,
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to current policy development?
Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious, but I believe we still need to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to develop future? As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in our past policy will help us going future with our current policy development. If this list is patient enough, we won't have people coming back over and over again with asking NCC to be police force, reclamation of resources. Also in the Ripe meeting with the younger people I've talked to, many of them do not understand how the policy being developed today because there is no start point, we ware not there since it started, not there for over two decades like many friends here. One day someone interested about policy development searching for future understanding of the *need*, will see it has been blocked to discuss here. I hope it does not happen.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
RIPE NCC only would assign provider independent resources. To LIRs RIPE NCC would allocate resources and then verify policy requirements, such as need, when the LIR makes assignments from the allocation.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
I am not going into the details of your examples as they are no longer relevant to current policy development. In general: assignments are quite specific. As an LIR you assign resources to your own infrastructure or a specific customer. Whenever any of that changes (i.e. customers changing, expansion of networks etc) it would be considered a new assignment which would require new justification (need etc).
I believe it is relevant as I have explained above.
So the correct thing to do in the database (to keep things a bit relevant) would be to delete the old assignments and create new ones. That would keep the history nice and clean (old object would be for the old assignment, new object with new creation date would be for the new assignment).
Cheers, Sander
"Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about situations and concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region... Let's stop this discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy." This is a pure policy discussion and not relevant to the region really, need exists or existed in every region. "It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the first place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then you can't just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't part of the condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are completely dependent on the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have any needs criteria anymore so this is all hypothetical." all the assignment for an "service", in which what confuse me is "does RIR also manage the infrastructure detail for the service"? No offense here in anyway, as I repeated said, I just trying to understand *need*. that's it. -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious, but I believe we still need to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to develop future?
I do not think that this is particularily relevant here. The status "we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies. If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask. But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.
As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in our past policy will help us going future with our current policy development.
Not in this vagueness. 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
Hi Gert: I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people. If you read my last Email, I have tried my best to ask that very specific question. *So the bottom line is, what does *need* mean? Does it means the whole package of justification material(so including everything submitted during the evaluation process for the assignment, including but not limit to the upstream's contract, location of the server, etc), or does it means the *service* was provided, LIR can free justify it's own infrastructure(e.g. move server from DC A to DC B to improve speed) to provide same service to the same customer group?* *Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then by definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of the server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the assignment again therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the infrastructure adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have assignment window), because the need has changed.* Sorry about my English that I can not put it in one sentence, and needed example to help explain, but my question are very very specific and not for the beer time. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious, but I believe we still need to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to develop future?
I do not think that this is particularily relevant here. The status "we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.
If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.
But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.
As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in our past policy will help us going future with our current policy development.
Not in this vagueness.
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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very specific answer.
the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with the RIPE NCC. If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being handled by the RIPE NCC. In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business. If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made. Nick
Hi On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very specific answer.
I've tried to provide more details, and tried my best to ask the specific question, if there is an understanding/language issue, I apologize, but only pointing at me saying I am asking a vague question without future exploring the detail in which I will try my best to explain, does not help any thing really. If a new guy came to ask an dum question, I think the best way is try to understand what he really trying to ask and help to answer it. but not" you are vague we don't understand go away). if that is the case, it really would take genius to join this community because all new guy's question will be dum at some point.
the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with the RIPE NCC.
If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being handled by the RIPE NCC. In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.
If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.
Simply not true here.
Nick
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hello, To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request) did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first question. The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the locations did not change the need for the assigned /24, so the answer to the question should be the same as the previous one. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question Hi I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy. We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid. The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view: First one: Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment? Second one: Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR? So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR? What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then? -- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer. And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy. The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well. (I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy discussion mailing list and nothing more than that). On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, <poty@iiat.ru> wrote:
Hello,
To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request) did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first question.
The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the locations did not change *the need* for the assigned /24, so the answer to the question should be the same as the previous one.
Regards,
Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat
*From:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Lu Heng *Sent:* Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net *Subject:* [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question
Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
First one:
Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment?
Second one:
Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
--
-- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Lu, just to be clear on this - since your question was a hypothetical one about something that might have been policy at some point (but certainly not current policy), your question wasn't strictly a policy question, and could be very well seen as speculative. Given the subject of your question, I can fully understand why people have reservations about this discussion. Kind regards Remco
On 04 Dec 2015, at 10:15 , Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi
Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.
The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
(I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, <poty@iiat.ru <mailto:poty@iiat.ru>> wrote: Hello,
To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request) did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first question.
The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the locations did not change the need for the assigned /24, so the answer to the question should be the same as the previous one.
Regards,
Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question
Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
First one:
Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment?
Second one:
Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
--
-- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi Remco: I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the definition of the *need*. And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help people learning. On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lu,
just to be clear on this - since your question was a hypothetical one about something that might have been policy at some point (but certainly not current policy), your question wasn't strictly a policy question, and could be very well seen as speculative. Given the subject of your question, I can fully understand why people have reservations about this discussion.
Kind regards
Remco
On 04 Dec 2015, at 10:15 , Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi
Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.
The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
(I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, <poty@iiat.ru> wrote:
Hello,
To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request) did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first question.
The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the locations did not change *the need* for the assigned /24, so the answer to the question should be the same as the previous one.
Regards,
Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat
*From:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Lu Heng *Sent:* Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net *Subject:* [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question
Hi
I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no need" policy.
We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few examples, please provide your view:
First one:
Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A, Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same customer, does the company's action need to be notified to RIR? And does this action considered invalid the original assignment?
Second one:
Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2 location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to RIR?
So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
--
-- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Hi, On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the definition of the *need*.
And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help people learning.
This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies, and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies. Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you). 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
Hi (This will be my last post in the list about this topic) On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the definition of the *need*.
And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: people
learning.
This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies, and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies.
Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you).
I think I know we won't return to the state of IPv4 plentiness fairly well, really not needed anyone tell me that. But the question was about understanding a long existed concept. If such question, in which I believe I do have certain amount of clue about the policy already, was not even allowed to posted in this list. where else on this planet you can discuss and learn RIPE policy(understand past policy are equally important as understand the current one for one to really understand the policy development process)? Are we really only open doors to the person can afford to go to RIPE meeting every time? I find it is almost impossible to learn RIPE policy and discuss it in the real life, no one knows RIPE, my current amount of knowledge are from my 10 plus Ripe meetings and going to training at my company's cost, in which I believe it will be very hard to apply to every one at my age. we already discuss about aging of the RIPE community, we really really need to allow people to ask dum question here but not kicking off anything the list that you think it is no use(and I appreciate your answer of course). This subject can concluded by one or few answers on the simple matter, it does not need to be that long. The time you spend on arguing with me about relevance, the question is already concluded. And moreover such argument are beyond my question and I am very disappointed I need to spend more time to discuss "can I discuss policy here" rather than to my real question.
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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Lu Heng wrote: [...]
If such question, in which I believe I do have certain amount of clue about the policy already, was not even allowed to posted in this list. where else on this planet you can discuss and learn RIPE policy (understand past policy are equally important as understand the current one for one to really understand the policy development process)?
The list you probably wanted was ripe-list@ripe.net: "This mailing list is intended for RIPE-related general announcements and discussions." History and speculation probably fit better on that list than this one. https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ripe-list Regards, Leo
Hi Lu,
Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.
The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
Glad you are happy with that answer. I just want to state for the record that any answer on this topic given on this mailing list does not represent any official interpretation of the policy and is as such non-authoritative :) Official interpretations are only given in the Impact Analysis of a policy proposal.
(I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
Nothing personal, and both Gert and I have answered your question as well as we could. Things are more complex than this answer shows though. For example changing the geographical location by itself might not make the 'need' invalid, but any changes in who/what the addresses are connected to might etc. These things are determined on a case-by-case basis by the hostmasters/IPRAs. That is why we don't discuss specific cases on the mailing list. A mailing list never has the full data, and speculating what hostmasters would decide would undermine their work. We have an arbitration system for cases where people disagree. Cheers, Sander
Hi Sander: Thanks for the reply and the discussion was started in one of the RIR meetings, and I am just asking community view(not official in any way of course) of this as part of globe view on the *need*, as it is an shared concept for every RIR. I think I have the answer I wanted here now and I appreciate everyone's input, if any future contribution or disagreement I still welcome of course, if you afraid generate noise in the list you are welcome to email me personally. But one thing I do hope is, don't let people afraid generate noise here in the list, let people ask dum question here, I come across quite few young people that really afraid to say anything in this list, just because they afraid to make mistake...this really isn't the case I hope. On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Lu,
Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.
The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
Glad you are happy with that answer. I just want to state for the record that any answer on this topic given on this mailing list does not represent any official interpretation of the policy and is as such non-authoritative :) Official interpretations are only given in the Impact Analysis of a policy proposal.
(I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
Nothing personal, and both Gert and I have answered your question as well as we could. Things are more complex than this answer shows though. For example changing the geographical location by itself might not make the 'need' invalid, but any changes in who/what the addresses are connected to might etc. These things are determined on a case-by-case basis by the hostmasters/IPRAs.
That is why we don't discuss specific cases on the mailing list. A mailing list never has the full data, and speculating what hostmasters would decide would undermine their work. We have an arbitration system for cases where people disagree.
Cheers, Sander
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
participants (9)
-
Andrea Cima -
Gert Doering -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Leo Vegoda -
Lu Heng
-
Nick Hilliard -
poty＠iiat.ru -
Remco van Mook -
Sander Steffann