November 2012 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

If you have PI you should have agreement with your sponsoring LIR (or RIPE NCC) and with several providers (taking into consideration multihoming). If all of them (wrongly assumed as "either" by you) choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans won't work. What's the difference then with assigned PA block? Alexey Ivanov tried to say that there are several LIRs that are not providers and their MAIN business is provide numbers (IPs, ASns...). They are of the same reliability as sponsoring LIRs and won't leave you without their service, because they want your money. More than that - there MANY providers, LIRs, carriers... which gives you enormous possibilities to change any of the party without any problem. No business harm at all. Regards, Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:40 PM To: Piotr Strzyzewski Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > Yes, you can. ;-) > > Please make your mind about your arguments. You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by poty＠iiat.ru 07 Nov '12

07 Nov '12

Nick, while there is no IP addresses some alternative is better than no alternative at all. You plan for the "may future" and forget about "need now". I don't see any problem with changing PA LIR in case of problems with old one (PI=small block), changing the transit provider for PI also need some DB work, new agreements with new providers and so on. The job has to be done and in modern situation there is no way out of this culprit. For the shining and undoubtful future - the only way is IPv6. Vladislav Potapov -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:46 PM To: LeaderTelecom Ltd. Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 On 07/11/2012 13:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote: > /24 PA works excelent for multihome. I have a lot examples. I'm sure it does, until the day that the end user gets into contractual problems with the PA LIR and wants to move transit provider, but can't do so easily because they lose the addresses. PI == provider independent. Nick

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by George Giannousopoulos 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Hello all, I agree that the three months limitation has to go.. However, I also believe that the period for allocations and assignments should be equal Best regards On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

3 2

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Last Call for Comments has ended. After the feedback received, a new draft (3.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community comments. The highlights of the changes in response of the community's request include: -use of the hyphen for "sub-domain". The Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to extend the Last Call period until 19 November 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this new version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 19 November 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0