2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)
Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I support this proposed policy. Best regards, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 12-12-12 11:16 , "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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.
On 12 December 2012 12:02, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com>wrote:
I support this proposed policy.
+1 J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
* Emilio Madaio
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Support. -- Tore Anderson
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* Emilio Madaio
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Support.
I support the proposal. -- Jan
I support this policy. Kind regards, Erik Bais
I support this policy. Kind regards, Job On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi all, On 12.12.2012 at 11:16 Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
[...] i support the proposal since it was discussed before and makes sense. The impact will be more or less NONE i guess since - AFAIR - temp. assignments aren't used by that many entities anyways... -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Support from here to. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
I support this proposal. That being said: 1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. FOSDEM takes place in February for example, other conferences can be "impacted" in a similar way. 2) Yet again, I had to diff the text as there's no easily available diff. I will take this up within ncc-services-wg though as that's the best place afaics. 3) It would be appreciated if the -announce list could be moderated or BCC'ed in the initial email, or the reply-to mangled appropriately, as people hitting reply-all is an all-too-common and easily avoided annoyance. Richard
I support this proposal On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 12 December 2012 10:16, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
I support this proposal. -- David Croft IT - Network Engineering Sargasso Networks http://www.sargasso.net/ For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694
Support D. On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:17, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I support. -- Alexey Ivanov 12.12.2012 14:19 - Emilio Madaio написал(а): Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: [1]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 i support this policy Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlDJx6EACgkQ39rh4kgD6O94WwCfd/gnhcWoxiccLPS0vw2n1tXW 9KcAn2CQCuzNA0MJCHn8jNwXqvDxZkBf =/AKV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Strongly support. We are in the network-build phase for 29th Chaos Communication Congress right now, and we will get the number resources on 20th or 21st December - 22/23rd is a weekend and I need hardly tell you what happens 24th-26th December. I am hoping we can get filters updated in time. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444
I strongly support this, because I'm one of the guys who has to update the filter for the AS286 upstream of 29C3 during my Christmas vacation. Thomas Jessen Operations Germany KPN International -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Will Hargrave Sent: 13 December 2012 13:31 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Strongly support. We are in the network-build phase for 29th Chaos Communication Congress right now, and we will get the number resources on 20th or 21st December - 22/23rd is a weekend and I need hardly tell you what happens 24th-26th December. I am hoping we can get filters updated in time. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444
On 12/12/2012 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
I support the proposed change for ripe-526. -- Dominik Bay de.rrbone
Strongly support. -- Arien On Dec 12, 2012(50), at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:16:45AM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
I support this proposal rgds, Sascha
I support this policy proposal. kind regards -- Christoph Am 12.12.12 11:16 schrieb "Emilio Madaio" unter <emadaio@ripe.net>:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I strongly support this proposal! We had this problem more than once, and this is a good solution.
1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. +1 clearer statement
Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
On 14/12/2012 21:38, Dan Luedtke wrote:
I strongly support this proposal! We had this problem more than once, and this is a good solution.
1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. +1 clearer statement
Thanks for the comment (and for supporting the proposal). From what I understand, the RIPE NCC has a procedure of defining a "month" calendar months unless otherwise specified. Nick
On 14/12/2012 22:39, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Thanks for the comment (and for supporting the proposal). From what I understand, the RIPE NCC has a procedure of defining a "month" calendar months unless otherwise specified.
It turns out that writing coherent english late on a friday evening is more than I'm capable of. Let's try again.
From what I understand, the RIPE NCC interprets "month" as meaning "calendar month" in RIPE policy documents - unless otherwise specified.
There. That makes a little more sense, I think. Nick
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
From what I understand, the RIPE NCC interprets "month" as meaning "calendar month" in RIPE policy documents - unless otherwise specified.
Which would be exactly the interpretation that made me comment on the need of a clearer policy in the first place. Richard
I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days? Regards Dan * Open to discussion, but I think 30 days is a reasonable time, as long as there is more space than events taking place. -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
Hi, On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote:
I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear.
Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days?
So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to paint a bikeshed instead? I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than 7 days (what we have 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 12/15/12 06:13 , Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote:
I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear.
Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days?
So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to paint a bikeshed instead?
I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than 7 days (what we have now).
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
I have to agree with Gert this is perfectly clear. It simply means if you get the assignment on the 5th day of the month, have to return it on the 5th day of the month plus the duration of the event. You may reasonably ask if that is fair, that some get it only 28, 29 or 30 extra days while others get 31 extra days, it may be arbitrary, but it is not ambiguous or unclear. I also agree that this is very reasonable for the vast majority of events lasting a week to 10 days or so. However, there are events that last longer or are of a size, complexity and/or stature that even a month could be insufficient setup and testing time. Such events are much less frequent and fewer in number, but their importance probably justifies more time, the Olympics, fairs and other provincial, national, or world expositions are a few examples. If we use the London 2012 Olympics as an extreme example, the events were scheduled from July 27th to August 12th or 17 days, and would seem to be allowed 47 days under the policy. However, other preparations for the Olympics were years in the making, construction of venues began years in advance. Even a month simply would be insufficient time for the kind of testing an event of such size, complexity, and stature requires. Something like 9 million tickets were available for the events. While this is one of the most extreme case, its clear there are events that justify more than a month for set up and testing. Maybe attendance in the range of 50 or 100 thousand could be used as a threshold between these larger scale event and more typical events or conferences that this policy change is intended to cover. Could I also make a suggestion, that you allow for reservations on temporary resources to be made up to one year in advance. This would allow event coordinators to know if temporary resources will or will not be available way before the period that they are allowed to actually use the resources. The intent isn't the they get the resources a year a head of time or that they even know which resources they will have, but that they know they will be available when they are entitled to use them. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
Hi Dave, thanks for your comments. On 15/12/2012 19:21, David Farmer wrote:
If we use the London 2012 Olympics as an extreme example, the events were scheduled from July 27th to August 12th or 17 days, and would seem to be allowed 47 days under the policy.
The official 2012 olympics budget was around £9.3 billion (€11.5b, $14.5b). I'm sure with that sort of budget, it would be possible to procure any quantity of addresses :-)
month for set up and testing. Maybe attendance in the range of 50 or 100 thousand could be used as a threshold between these larger scale event and more typical events or conferences that this policy change is intended to cover.
similarly, any massive-scale event like this will have a massive budget. This policy proposal isn't really aimed at that. It's aimed at solving a class of problems including smaller scale events, research and general temporary projects. It cannot and should not attempt to satisfy all requirements for temporary resource assignments for all time. "One size never fits all".
Could I also make a suggestion, that you allow for reservations on temporary resources to be made up to one year in advance.
In fact we discussed this at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam: https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/steno/18/ Check out the transcript from about 1/2 way down the page. I think there are problems associated with a booking system model. My preference at this stage is to keep the policy and the implementation very simple; if it turns out that this doesn't work for people, we can revisit the issue in future. The purpose of this particular policy tweak is to fix a timing issue which makes the current temporary assignment policy difficult to implement in real life. Nick
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days?
So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to paint a bikeshed instead?
I would be more than happy if there is any way to speed up the PDP on this proposal. I just had to admin that I see Richard's point. This wasn't meant to be against the proposal, which, as stated earlier, I still support. Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de
On 15/12/2012 12:06, Dan Luedtke wrote:
I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear.
Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days?
Dan, Richard, In fact, the statement is clear and unambiguous: it means one calendar month. The term "month" is used widely in other RIPE docs docs, which is why it's used here. Nick
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote: In fact, the statement is clear and unambiguous: it means one calendar
month. The term "month" is used widely in other RIPE docs docs, which is why it's used here.
It's as clear as our calendar is "clear", but as I stated initially, this is a problem in general. It will not, and can not, be solved in the context of this PDP. I merely pointed out that I would have preferred a different wording/time frame. Again, I support this proposal and I do _not_ want to hinder its speedy adoption in any way. That's why I put it below the actual gist, i.e. "support". If anything, I would be _strongly_ in favour of easing 29c3's pain and handing them their address space first thing Monday morning. Especially since the support for this proposal is unanimous as of right now with 19 of 19 replies expressing support. Richard
On 15/12/2012 17:35, Richard Hartmann wrote:
If anything, I would be _strongly_ in favour of easing 29c3's pain and handing them their address space first thing Monday morning. Especially since the support for this proposal is unanimous as of right now with 19 of 19 replies expressing support.
Hi Richi, this is possibly a matter for the chairs to comment on, but my understanding is that there is no facility for the policy development process to do this, regardless of the general level of support for the policy change. The time-scales are outlined here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/policy-development-process-info-pdf The initial discussion phase began on 2012-12-04, which means that the soonest that this proposal could become actual policy would be around the end of June 2013. Nick
I support this policy. Wilhelm Am 12.12.2012 11:16, schrieb Emilio Madaio:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I support this policy. /Ragnar On 12.12.12 11:16, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I also support the proposed policy kind regards, Julian Seifert ________________________________________ Von: policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net [policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Emilio Madaio [emadaio@ripe.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 11:16 An: policy-announce@ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [policy-announce] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Dear address-policy-wg, I would like to express my support for this proposal. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Support! On 12 dec 2012, at 11:16, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Best regards, - kurtis -
Go, go, go! Nigel On 12/12/2012 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
I support the proposed policy. Best regards, Florian On 12/12/12 11:16, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On 12/12/2012 10:16, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 January 2013.
I support this policy and encourage you to publish the new version as quickly as possible ! Andy
participants (33)
-
Andy Davidson -
Anfinsen, Ragnar -
Arien Vijn -
Christoph Neukirch -
Dan Luedtke -
David Croft -
David Farmer -
David Freedman -
David Monosov -
Dominik Bay -
Emilio Madaio -
Erik Bais -
Florian Bauhaus -
Gert Doering -
James Blessing -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jessen, Thomas -
Job Snijders -
Julian Seifert -
Kay Rechthien -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Lindqvist Kurt Erik -
Mike Simkins -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Remco Van Mook -
Richard Hartmann -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sascha Lenz -
Sascha Luck -
Tore Anderson -
Wilhelm Boeddinghaus -
Will Hargrave