Fwd: 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hello, The allocations made before the date of this announcement, should be governed by the old politics. is not serious things apply retroactively. On exhaustion, RIPE Why is not like other RIRs? Because RIPE accepts LIRs outside the region? without having a registered company and physical address in the RIPE Region? Other ARIN RIR as it met. Regards. David
Hello David,
Hello, The allocations made before the date of this announcement, should be governed by the old politics.
The *transfers* made before the date of the announcement are handled by the old transfer policies, transfers made after that are made according to the new policy. The date the allocation was made is not relevant to determining which transfer policy is applied. Please stop discussing 2015-01 and its implementation. We have reached consensus and the policy has been implemented. If you want to change anything please submit a new policy proposal. Cheers, Sander
Sorry new message on 2015-01. No consensus was reached. Even on RIPE website information that nothing interesting and good in that proposal https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 --- After analyzing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented. --- But everybody here just understood that nobody listen to them. Yes. It's good idea to submit new policy canceling this one policy or making it better! But if nobody listen to members why to do so? Yuri@ip4market On 26.07.2015 19:43, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hello David,
Hello, The allocations made before the date of this announcement, should be governed by the old politics.
The *transfers* made before the date of the announcement are handled by the old transfer policies, transfers made after that are made according to the new policy. The date the allocation was made is not relevant to determining which transfer policy is applied.
Please stop discussing 2015-01 and its implementation. We have reached consensus and the policy has been implemented. If you want to change anything please submit a new policy proposal.
Cheers, Sander
But everybody here just understood that nobody listen to them. Yes. It's good idea to submit new policy canceling this one policy or making it better! But if nobody listen to members why to do so? Democracy sucks sometimes... unfortunately, most participants in the
list weighed the arguments and were in support of the policy change - and considering the wailing done by several people who make money by trading IPs, it may be a first successful step towards abuse of the policies for IP address transfer ... I reckon we can get the additional loopholes fixed in the next proposal - and I doubt they will turn out to reverse the change ... -garry
Hello Yuri,
No consensus was reached.
Yes there was. I declared so a few days ago. If you truly believe that my decision to do that was wrong then please follow the Appeals procedure described in section 4 of our PDP (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642) but please stop repeating yourself on this mailing list. Cheers, Sander PS: my apologies for repeating myself, but I want to make sure that everybody understands how this works so that we (the chairs) don't get blamed over and over again for not listening to the community. We do listen, and we do make honest decisions, and we will fully cooperate with any appeals procedure if people feel we wronged them. PPS: sorry for a PS section that is longer than the main content
Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC. We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last /8, the proposal is correct but, because it does not make eligible LIRs for another /22? The new /22 It would address that IANA has redistributed to RIPE. 45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255 and 2015-01 policy active, no transfer for next 24 months after allocation, and it is found necessary to use this new allocation, so it would prevent requested to speculate. I hope your views regarding this Regards. David
Dear David, On 14.08.2015 09:09, ripe@europeiptv.net wrote:
Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC.
We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last /8, the proposal is correct but, because it does not make eligible LIRs for another /22?
The new /22 It would address that IANA has redistributed to RIPE.
45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255
and 2015-01 policy active, no transfer for next 24 months after allocation, and it is found necessary to use this new allocation, so it would prevent requested to speculate.
I hope your views regarding this
even after having re-read this a couple of times I have not the slightest clue what you are aiming at. I am sorry. Best, -C.
Hello Carsten, What I think David is trying to say is to make LIRs elegible for another /22 out from the 185/8. And He gives as example the recieved blocks from IANA: 45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255 This is a good example of a discussion that can happens out of the list and if a proposal comes then here is the place to discuss it. Now will happen a lot of -1 or +1 in the mail list for something that is NOT a proposal. PS: David, what you are trying to say have been discussed here and the answer is no. Regards, --Daniel El 14/08/2015 a las 14:47, Carsten Schiefner escribió:
Dear David,
On 14.08.2015 09:09, ripe@europeiptv.net wrote:
Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC.
We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last /8, the proposal is correct but, because it does not make eligible LIRs for another /22?
The new /22 It would address that IANA has redistributed to RIPE.
45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255
and 2015-01 policy active, no transfer for next 24 months after allocation, and it is found necessary to use this new allocation, so it would prevent requested to speculate.
I hope your views regarding this
even after having re-read this a couple of times I have not the slightest clue what you are aiming at.
I am sorry.
Best,
-C.
Hi On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 09:41:32AM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
Now will happen a lot of -1 or +1 in the mail list for something that is NOT a proposal.
It's sort of the early beginning of the "discussion phase" - test the opinion of the community, and only submit something formal if there is sufficient support... (and adjust the proposal according to early feedback received). So it's not waste of energy to test ideas first :-) 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, El 15/08/2015 a las 15:33, Gert Doering escribió:
It's sort of the early beginning of the "discussion phase" - test the opinion of the community, and only submit something formal if there is sufficient support... (and adjust the proposal according to early feedback received). So it's not waste of energy to test ideas first :-)
Of course is not a waste of energy. I didnt mean that and I'm sorry if it sound like that. What I want to mean is that maybe, and just maybe, some kind of more real-time communication channel (In my example was IRC, but is not the only one) to test/cook ideas first could be better than the list. And more for this case, if I understood the question of David, is something that have been discussed (in one time, proposed by me) before. Regards, --Daniel
Hello, The proposal is that once an LIR has received one /22 from 185/8, LIRs are eligible to apply for another /22, and that the blocks ranges are used that IANA has redistributed so far today is: 45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255 and that these allocations are governed by the policy 2015-01 as well. You know what I mean? ( I'm sorry for my English ). Regards. IPTV Europe El 2015-08-14 13:47, Carsten Schiefner escribió:
Dear David,
On 14.08.2015 09:09, ripe@europeiptv.net wrote:
Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC.
We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last /8, the proposal is correct but, because it does not make eligible LIRs for another /22?
The new /22 It would address that IANA has redistributed to RIPE.
45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255
and 2015-01 policy active, no transfer for next 24 months after allocation, and it is found necessary to use this new allocation, so it would prevent requested to speculate.
I hope your views regarding this
even after having re-read this a couple of times I have not the slightest clue what you are aiming at.
I am sorry.
Best,
-C.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015, at 09:57, ripe@europeiptv.net wrote:
Hello, The proposal is that once an LIR has received one /22 from 185/8, LIRs are eligible to apply for another /22, and that the blocks ranges are used that IANA has redistributed so far today is:
45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255
and that these allocations are governed by the policy 2015-01 as well.
You know what I mean? ( I'm sorry for my English ).
Hi, You are not the not the only one thinking about the "last /8 policy" revision. See https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf However, there are 2 conflicting point on which a number of community members insist (on both at the same time): - making the "last /8" pool (including recovered space) last as long as possible - no not reinstate needs-based policy Whatever touches the allocation policy would violate at least one of them.
Hello Daniel, What you say, is not the idea that I have proposed, I responded to the list again and see if I understood better. regards. El 2015-08-14 13:47, Carsten Schiefner escribió:
Dear David,
On 14.08.2015 09:09, ripe@europeiptv.net wrote:
Hello, I wonder what you think the community ripe to propose a new policy for IPv4 addressing, the proposal would be something like having another RIR as APNIC.
We all know that RIPE currently has in place the policy for the last /8, the proposal is correct but, because it does not make eligible LIRs for another /22?
The new /22 It would address that IANA has redistributed to RIPE.
45.128.0.0 - 45.159.255.255 45.8.0.0 - 45.15.255.255 45.80.0.0 - 45.95.255.255
and 2015-01 policy active, no transfer for next 24 months after allocation, and it is found necessary to use this new allocation, so it would prevent requested to speculate.
I hope your views regarding this
even after having re-read this a couple of times I have not the slightest clue what you are aiming at.
I am sorry.
Best,
-C.
participants (8)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) -
Garry Glendown -
Gert Doering -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
ripe＠europeiptv.net -
Sander Steffann -
Staff