July 2011 - address-policy-wg

Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
by DI. Thomas Schallar 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello! What ist the current status on the multihomed v6 PI topic? regards, Thomas

32 70

2008-08 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Oct '11

03 Oct '11

Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-08, "Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals Reason for withdrawal: after carefully following the discussion in the Concluding Phase of the Policy Development Process, the proposer is of the opinion that consensus on this proposal is not possible within the RIPE community. As a consequence, the proposer has decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

14 27

2011-01 Review Period extended until 25 August 2011 (Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 mechanisms by the IANA)
by Emilio Madaio 31 Aug '11

31 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25 August 2011. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 14

2011-03 New Draft Document Published (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-03 has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and Impact Analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 10 August 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

6 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] the post-mortem on 2008-08
by Milton L Mueller 28 Jul '11

28 Jul '11

Jim: > -----Original Message----- > We're in a paradox where the > community has killed a policy on address certification while > simultaneously authorising the NCC to develop such a system. [snip] > There now needs to be a vote by the NCC membership to > take a decision which will normalise that situation. And unlike RIPE's > PDP, the AGM shouldn't take 3 years to decide. If the NCC membership votes to continue developing the system, how exactly does the situation get "normalized?" A vote to continue development of a system that has been rejected in the policy process continues the paradox, does it not? Only a negative vote would normalize. And I don't get the impression that you would vote no, or urge others to vote no. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

2 1

Re: 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Josh Nertrino 24 Jul '11

24 Jul '11

I fully support this proposal. Finally some movement..... (this draft was submitted back in 2006!) Ps. ARIN already has this for years !!!

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
by Ivan Pepelnjak 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

Let me try to understand: (A) We don't disagree that he might actually deserve more than /32 (B) According to my understanding of previous discussions I had on this topic, RIPE might actually have already reserved extra space for his future needs (C) According to the current rules he can't get another /32 for a total of /31 without using most of the current /32 (and hoping his next /32 will be adjacent) (D) Someone is seriously suggesting he returns the current /32 and asks for a brand new /31 which he will likely get. Was someone reading too much Kafka or The Good Soldier Švejk lately? Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Zorz @ Go6.si [mailto:jan@go6.si] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 5:13 PM > To: Ivan Pepelnjak; 'Sander Steffann'; 'Yannis Nikolopoulos' > Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) > > Going to production it was said :) > > I did a long discussion with Alex Le Heux (RIPE IPRA) about the same > issue, his advice was that. > > Jan > > Ivan Pepelnjak <ipepelnjak(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Extremely helpful advice from the ops perspective. > > > >> Trade in your /32 and get something bigger under initial alloc > >> conditions... :) > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

20 44

Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
by Sander Steffann 18 Jul '11

18 Jul '11

Hello Yannis, > Lately we've been trying to lay out a future-proof IPv6 addressing plan (actually, to revise our initial IPv6 plan from a few years back) and we came to the conclusion that if we were to plan ahead for a few years, we would need an extra IPv6 allocation from RIPE, one more /32 (we already have one). Well, according to ripe-512 we're not eligible for a subsequent allocation yet, since we haven't met the subsequent allocation criteria (HD ratio). > > We'll be offering our commercial dual stack services (broadband, leased-lines VPNs) next year. This means that we'll have 1,2M potential subscribers (/56) just for the retail service. And then there's all the /48s for the VPNs and bigger customers. I'm not saying that all of our customers will migrate to IPv6 at once but we have to plan, don't we? And then there's the growth factor to be considered also... > > For us, this extra /32 will make the difference between an efficient and future-proof addressing plan that will last for many years and one that will have to be revised after 2-3 years (with all the readdressing etc). I thought that one of the key advantages with IPv6 was the fact that we would get rid of readdressing. What I'm trying to say is that ripe-512 is not flexible enough. In the end, should we planning ahead for many years (as per RFC6177) or not? I am adding the address policy working group. Any changes to address policy / ripe-512 should (also) be discussed there. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

2 1

2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
by Emilio Madaio 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

Dear Colleagues, Following the feedback received, a new version of the proposal described in 2006-05 is now published. The draft policy document for the proposal has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and Impact Analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 July 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

11 10

2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2011-02 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 26 July. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

28 72