May 2012 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

2011-04 Proposal Accepted (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Emilio Madaio 31 May '12

31 May '12

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-545 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 The updated RIPE Document is ripe-552 and is available at: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-552.html Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 still business as usual
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 May '12

30 May '12

Dear colleagues, In anticipation of reaching the last /8 of IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC service region, we have been looking at the number of IPv4 addresses the RIPE NCC handed out over the last four years. The curves look surprisingly uniform. Please read more on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/ipv4-business-as-usual Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
by Lu Heng 29 May '12

29 May '12

Hi Sorry for disturbing. I have one question which I didn't find answer in the policy document. I was wondering how any-cast or uni-cast solution works with cross region possibilities. If we announcing 1.1.1.0/16 in EU, and announcing 1.1.1.0/18 in US, is it against policy? If we announcing 1.1.1.0/16 both in EU and US, is it against policy?(all IP from Ripe) Please if someone can help me clarify this. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

17 46

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 9, Issue 17
by Lu Heng 24 May '12

24 May '12

Dear Ingrid: Thanks for replying. So is that to speaking: As long as the need is inside the region, part of the infrastructure(CDN network for example) with the IP address can be announced outside of Ripe service region(as I see many are doing that). Am I correct? On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:17 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Tore Anderson) > 2. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 3. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 4. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 5. Re: Assignment transfer among LIR (Shane Kerr) > 6. Re: Assignment transfer among LIR (Pascal Gloor) > 7. Re: Assignment transfer among LIR (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 8. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Randy Bush) > 9. Re: Any-cast or uni-cast solutions (Ingrid Wijte) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:01:13 +0200 > From: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: Ingrid Wijte <ingrid(a)ripe.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <4FBCB569.5060204(a)redpill-linpro.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > * Ingrid Wijte > >> I would like to give some further clarification on this. >> >> The RIPE NCC allocates/assigns address space to organisations who have a >> need in the RIPE NCC service region. The address space must be >> originated from the RIPE NCC service region. Due to the diverse nature >> of businesses, in addition to this there can be announcements from other >> regions. > > Just to make 110% certain, you're saying here that it is the *need* that > must be in the RIPE region, not the *organisation*, correct? > > Example 1: China Unicom sets up a legal organisation in the Netherlands, > joins the NCC, and requests an allocation from which they intend to > assign addresses to broadband customers in China. They intend to > advertise the allocated prefix(es) to peers at AMS-IX (as well as from > other exchange points around the world). > > Example 2: I, representing an existing LIR in the RIPE region, build a > data center in Australia and set up a server hosting business there. I > want to make an assignment to a new customer in this data center from my > IPv4 allocation received from the RIPE NCC, and request that from the > NCC hostmater using a ripe-488 form. > > Assuming all the documentation is otherwise in order and the need is > real, will these requests be granted or denied? > > Best regards, > -- > Tore Anderson > Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:03:28 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <4FBCB5F0.4050009(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 5/23/12 10:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> You can announce them anywhere you like. But you cannot assign them to >>> end users outside outside of the region. >> >> really? so i have a /16 from ncc and i spread it over pops in ams, lon, >> and nyc, but i can not have bgp-speaking customers in that address space >> in nyc? if true, that is soooo broken. > > +1 > > (I just saw upfront that comment coming in :) :) :) ) > > Jan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:11:36 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <4FBCB7D8.5090903(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 5/23/12 12:01 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: >> Example 1: China Unicom sets up a legal organisation in the Netherlands, >> joins the NCC, and requests an allocation from which they intend to >> assign addresses to broadband customers in China. They intend to >> advertise the allocated prefix(es) to peers at AMS-IX (as well as from >> other exchange points around the world). > > They could also say during the initial alloc process that they'll > allocate this resources to potential customers in RIPE-NCC region and > the use it elsewhere. Just saying... > >> >> Example 2: I, representing an existing LIR in the RIPE region, build a >> data center in Australia and set up a server hosting business there. I >> want to make an assignment to a new customer in this data center from my >> IPv4 allocation received from the RIPE NCC, and request that from the >> NCC hostmater using a ripe-488 form. >> >> Assuming all the documentation is otherwise in order and the need is >> real, will these requests be granted or denied? > > good questions, wonder what the answers will be :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:12:48 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <4FBCB820.2020704(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 5/23/12 10:59 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: >> If on the other hand out-of-region assignments are valid and allowed, I >> cannot fathom why those fast growing ISPs in China, India, Vietnam and >> so on that were allocating IPv4 addresses from APNIC at an incredible >> rate right up until the day APNIC hit the /8 have not simply set up >> legal organisations in the RIPE region, joined the NCC, and continued >> allocating from here in more or less the same rate as before APNIC ran out. > > Maybe those IPv4-hungry operators are just not aware of this "option" ;) > > Jan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:11:54 +0200 > From: Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR > To: Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor(a)finecom.ch> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <20120523131154.55f5f50d(a)shane-eeepc.home.time-travellers.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Pascal, > > On Tuesday, 2012-05-22 16:26:50 +0000, > Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor(a)finecom.ch> wrote: >> >IOW, I don't see any clear solutions to this problem for existing >> >contracts. >> >> To be honest, me neither, but I wanted some community feedback to see >> if there would be a solution I didn't think of. > > In my mind, this is the MAIN problem with IPv4 exhaustion. Anyone who > got IPv4 address before exhaustion can provide services, anyone else > cannot. > > Think back to the Internet in 1990 and where it would be today if the > phone companies held all of the IPv4 space and you had to go through > them for all connectivity. > > While James Blessing's "use IPv6" suggestion is perhaps not easy, it's > the best answer we have. :( > > -- > Shane > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:30:17 +0000 > From: Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor(a)finecom.ch> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR > To: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <CBE2A372.25BDA%pascal.gloor(a)finecom.ch> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >>Why moving elswhere then? > > It's the other way around. We are the wholesale cable provider and this > might be an issue to gain new customers if they don't have IPs and can't > have them from us. > > > Pascal > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 14:57:02 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignment transfer among LIR > To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <4FBCDE9E.9050604(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 5/23/12 2:30 PM, Pascal Gloor wrote: >>> Why moving elswhere then? >> >> It's the other way around. We are the wholesale cable provider and this >> might be an issue to gain new customers if they don't have IPs and can't >> have them from us. > > I think you nailed it. > > So it's not the fairness and competitiveness issue but purely lack of > resources and IPv4 depletion that is beating your business up (and not > just yours). > > You have several ways out, as already pointed in this discussion: > > - Big evil CGN > - A bit less evil A+P derivates (MAP, 4RD, etc) - when they become available > - IPv6 with NAT64/DNS64 in the core > > Pick your poison :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 22:31:19 +0900 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> > Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl>, Lu Heng > <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <m2wr439g7s.wl%randy(a)psg.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> That is my understanding, at least. I asked this question to the RIR >> panel at the mic in Rome, whether and APNIC region ISP could (post APNIC >> depletion) set up a LIR in the RIPE region (or any other region), and >> allocate addresses from there and assign them to end users in their home >> region. The answer (which came from Geoff Huston IIRC) was something >> along the lines of ?no, you have to assign the addresses in the service >> region from which they were allocated?. > > you mis-heard > > i am in the apnic region and chaired address policy sig in apnic for > some years. this is not the case. > > randy > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:17:09 +0200 > From: Ingrid Wijte <ingrid(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <4FBCFF75.9050708(a)ripe.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Tore, > > On 5/23/12 12:01 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: >> * Ingrid Wijte >> >>> I would like to give some further clarification on this. >>> >>> The RIPE NCC allocates/assigns address space to organisations who have a >>> need in the RIPE NCC service region. The address space must be >>> originated from the RIPE NCC service region. Due to the diverse nature >>> of businesses, in addition to this there can be announcements from other >>> regions. >> Just to make 110% certain, you're saying here that it is the *need* that >> must be in the RIPE region, not the *organisation*, correct? > The need and the route origination must be in the RIPE NCC service region. >> >> Example 1: China Unicom sets up a legal organisation in the Netherlands, >> joins the NCC, and requests an allocation from which they intend to >> assign addresses to broadband customers in China. They intend to >> advertise the allocated prefix(es) to peers at AMS-IX (as well as from >> other exchange points around the world). > This example would be ok for several reasons: > The requestor is a RIPE NCC member. They have infrastructure in the > region and the address space will originate from the RIPE NCC service > region. > Other similar examples would be VPN Providers but also Satellite > providers that are based in the region and have customers globally. >> >> Example 2: I, representing an existing LIR in the RIPE region, build a >> data center in Australia and set up a server hosting business there. I >> want to make an assignment to a new customer in this data center from my >> IPv4 allocation received from the RIPE NCC, and request that from the >> NCC hostmater using a ripe-488 form. > As long as the prefix is originated in the RIPE NCC service region, this > would be approved. The LIR has an allocation, is announcing it in the > RIPE NCC service region, and is making PA assignments to its customers. > > Regards, > > Ingrid Wijte > > Registration Services Assistant Manager > RIPE NCC > >> Assuming all the documentation is otherwise in order and the need is >> real, will these requests be granted or denied? >> >> Best regards, > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 9, Issue 17 > ************************************************ -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 1

Assignment transfer among LIR
by Pascal Gloor 23 May '12

23 May '12

Dear WG, As a service provider specialized in CATV, we will soon face a competition problem. CATV operators, often, do not operate their IP business, they take these services from a specialized service provider (like us) and therefore the end-users get IP(v4) addresses from that provider. In the future, CATV operators will not be able to change their provider because the new provider will be unable to assign IPv4 space to them. On the other side, there is no need for additional IPs, the CATV operator already has them (from another LIR). If we do not solve this issue, this market will simply and completely freeze, giving way too much power to the 'current' provider (like us) over the CATV operator. I've been thinking a lot about how to solve this issue, so I'll just throw a first pseudo-draft, give me your feedback and we'll make it better. Post-IPv4-Exhaustion customer transfer When a customer changes from LIR A to LIR B: - RIPE NCC will allocate the needed space (out of the 'reserved-for-new-LIR' space) to LIB B, but not larger than the original one. - RIPE NCC will inform LIR A about the transfer and will request the space to be returned. - If LIR A cannot return the space (deaggregation?), RIPE NCC will freeze (how?) it. NOTE: There should maybe be a minimal assignment size for this process, maybe /22. (Why? To avoid a flood of very small assignments transfer requests to RIPE NCC). Let me know what you think, how it can be improved or if you think its BS. Cheers, Pascal

8 18

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Sergey Myasoedov 21 May '12

21 May '12

Regarding using last /8 for PI assignments, this proposal looks fair to me. -- Sergey Monday, May 7, 2012, 4:18:52 PM, you wrote: EM> Dear Colleagues, EM> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation EM> and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now EM> available for discussion. EM> You can find the full proposal at: EM> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 EM> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to EM> <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. EM> Regards EM> Emilio Madaio EM> Policy Development Officer EM> RIPE NCC

3 2

FYI: ICANN News Alert -- Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
by Jaap Akkerhuis 16 May '12

16 May '12

This might be of some interest for this group. jaap ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15may12-en.htm ____________________________________ Ratification of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA 15 May 2012 The ICANN Board has ratified the Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA as sent by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Council to the ICANN Board on 13 March 2012. The proposal was posted for public comment from 14 March 2012 through 4 April 2012, during which time no comments were submitted. The Global Policy allows the Regional Internet Registries to return IPv4 address space to an IANA-managed pool from which equal parts will be allocated to all five RIRs in a deterministic manner on a regular schedule, once triggered. (http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-pos…). ICANN staff will be taking all necessary steps to implement the Global Policy.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 15 May '12

15 May '12

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 > If I understand the rationale correctly, the change essentially means that a LIR has more time to actually implement a use of a transferred block, than they have for a new block. I am a n00b at these matters, but I don't quite see why this is an important change, and why as much as 24 months is necessary. Could someone please try to enlighten me? -- Jan

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Chris 10 May '12

10 May '12

hi! On 05/10/2012 02:49 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 i believe the current policy allowing intra-rir-transfers from lir to lir under identical provisions as regular allocations is just and the way to go. as mentioned before, i also don't regard the attempts to pirate the ip-commons as legitimiate, and this proposal's only effect seems to be to make the anticipated 'owned-ip-product' more attractive than the 'competing product'. i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. regards, Chris

2 1

2012-03 New Policy Proposal (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal)
by Emilio Madaio 10 May '12

10 May '12

Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 7 June 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Remco Van Mook 09 May '12

09 May '12

<all hats off> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations, or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size. Now, we have a number of new realities: - final /8 applies to all v4 address space when it kicks in, including space that gets returned later; - It also applies to v4 address space that has not been allocated or assigned by RIPE NCC at that date; - An additional 'special case' block was set aside for IXPs. This all impacts, in a positive or negative way, how much future there is in our final /8 policy. I'd like to think that we made a well-considered decision back then, and if we're going to make a fundamental change like this one I'd like to see some numbers in an impact analysis. Based on current distribution, how much space do we anticipate will fall under the final /8 policy, how much of it will be allocated in /22 PA and how much will be allocated in /24 PI? Given the 'one size fits nobody' nature of the final /8 policy, this would be about the number of allocations/assignments done so far, not the size. Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with a broken internet that, surprise, we won't be managing any more. Breaking IPv4 might lead to increased IPv6 adoption, but not on the internet as we know it today. Everybody who wants to connect his organisation to the internet is going to need at least some IPv4 address space for the time being, so why screw it up for new entrants? Finally, I would like to hear how this proposal correlates to the charge for PI space - the good old 2007-01 chestnut. For post-depletion LIRs, the grapes would be quite sour if one could pick up a quarter of the available resources for about one twentieth of the price. Should "Final /8 PIv4" have a separate price tag? Best Remco 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.

10 12

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by chrish＠consol.net 09 May '12

09 May '12

hi! On 05/09/2012 03:02 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 this proposal doesn't fit with the current hierarchical structure of rirs and lirs. if this hierarchical structure is to be changed, this would be an essential change. introducing such a change in just a subordinate procedure isn't the way to go. i can't see a justification or explanation why the rir/lir hierarchical structure should be changed. furthermore this proposal is incompatible with policy - with the current one, and as it doesn't change the incompatibilities also with the proposed changed policy. i don't think it's reasonable to try to drop the primacy of fair and according to need distribution of ip-space. as the readers of this ml certainly know, the proposed change is actually meant to facilitate the trade of ips, this way implying (well - trying to imply) the change to ips as an asset (with a plethora of further adverse consequences). i formally voice strong and sustained opposition. i'd suggest that inter-rir transfers simply take the canonical way: from current lir, back to current lir's rir, to target lir's rir, to the target lir. regards, Chris

3 2

2012-02 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 09 May '12

09 May '12

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 june 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Julien Rabier 09 May '12

09 May '12

Le 07 mai à 16:18, Emilio Madaio a écrit : > > Dear Colleagues, > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. Hello, I support this proposal. Julien

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Erik Bais 08 May '12

08 May '12

> You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 May 2012. I have 1 question before the last-call ends tomorrow. . . In the grand scheme of things and also seeing the other policies popping up for trying to divide whatever is going to be left from the final /8. If we all think that this reservation is a good thing for the good of the internet ... (And I agree on the reasoning) is reserving only a /16 from the final /8 enough? 65k /24's are in the last /8 ... and for future IXP's we 'only' reserve a /16 (256 /24's ) I would rather see that increased to a /14 if possible. Regards, Erik Bais

6 6

Ratification of the Global Policy Proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy for post, exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA"
by Emilio Madaio 08 May '12

08 May '12

Dear colleagues, The Global Policy Proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA" was accepted by the RIPE community in October 2011. The ICANN Board recently ratified the global policy proposal. The resolution is now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm The new RIPE document is ripe-529 and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-529 Best regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Dan Luedtke 07 May '12

07 May '12

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. I support this proposal. > It is likely that PI assignments from the last /8 will cause the last /8 to be consumed faster than if PI assignments were prohibited. That's a pro in my opinion. Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Daniel Roesen 07 May '12

07 May '12

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 04:18:52PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. I support this policy change proposal. It makes no sense to me to disallow PI allocation within the last /8. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by chrish＠consol.net 07 May '12

07 May '12

hi! > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 i'd like to support this. regards, Chris

1 0

2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 07 May '12

07 May '12

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-530, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 4 June 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-01 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Inter-RIR Address Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 01 May '12

01 May '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2012-01,"Inter-RIR Address Transfers", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012… Reason for withdrawal:With respect to 2012-01, after the feedback and discussion at the RIPE 64 Meeting, the proposer decided to collaborate with other community members in submitting another policy proposal related to IPv4 transfers. Therefore the proposer decided to withdraw this proposal. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0