July 2014 - address-policy-wg

2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 17 Sep '14

17 Sep '14

Tore, Thanks for your feedback. See below for comments. From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108(a)fud.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I can see no reason to not do this. With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a transfer involving a "needy" RIR. I have some comments/suggested improvements though: 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided. However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation? could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the resource-specific policy would allow for that. Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?. **** I think this is a very good point, thanks. Sandra 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606 section 5.5: ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR. When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the sending RIR.? These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0. (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.) *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue. *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact. *** Agree on spelling of fulfill. Thanks. Sandra 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following: ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.? This statement seems out of place to me: * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself. * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a completely nonsensical outcome. IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because it already does just that. :-) *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is *** just a statement of fact: that legacy policy will apply, as you say. *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to *** me. Sandra So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05. *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what *** is already there. Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for *** your support for the intent. *** Sandra Tore End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15 *************************************************

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Gert Doering 09 Aug '14

09 Aug '14

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" 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: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. So, tell me your thoughts, please. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

15 26

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Axel Pawlik 06 Aug '14

06 Aug '14

On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? Max, all, the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation provided by our members. This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national authority the member chooses. cheers, Axel

22 42

2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Extending the fulfilment of the IPv6 requirement to include any globally routable unicast IPv6 address block - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has the right to be contractually engaged with and to provide services to any legal entity, unless there are restrictions by law. Currently, Dutch law does not restrict our contractual engagement with, or provision of our services to, legal entities in Crimea. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27
by Lu 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. 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. > On 2014年7月29日, at 下午6:00, 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: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A(a)bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Hi at all I also support the policy change. Best regards, Olaf (OLAF4-RIPE)

1 0

2014-01 Proposal Accepted (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-621 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-621 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We estimate it may take a few weeks to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers
by Max Tulyev 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello All, don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly touches IP/ASN management, of course. Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why?

5 6

Consensus after Last Call on 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sander Steffann 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello working group, As per the RIPE PDP in ripe-614 the decision whether a proposal has reached consensus is now done by the working group chairs of the WG that discussed the proposal. We will give an overview of what occurred in the working group and explain how we came to our conclusions based on that. When this proposal went from Review phase to Last Call this was based on this analysis by the working group chairs: > During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. > > After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: > - Tore Anderson > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Piotr Strzyzewski > - Sascha Luck > - Jens Ott > - George Giannousopoulos > - Andreas Larsen > - Sebastian Wiesinger > > The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. During Last Call four more people stated their clear support (on 16 and 17 June) - Elvis Daniel Velea (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Erik Bais (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Janos Zsako (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Daniel Stolpe There were no other postings during Last Calls. Based on the comments received in review and last call phase, we have decided that consensus has indeed been reached. We therefore ask the RIPE NCC to implement this policy. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Your working group chairs, Gert Döring and Sander Steffann

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Job Snijders 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. Kind regards, Job

5 4

About the /22 allocation limitation
by Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Hi Everyone, First of all, my name is Daniel and Im the Network Administrator of the AS199952 Im new to the address policy wg and Im sure you can answer the question. The /22 allocation restriction to new LIRs are only for new LIRs or for all LIRs? We only got a /22 as new LIR, and we cant ask for more IPs, proving we need it or not. I know, this is a recursive discussion, but I wonder if old LIRs can ask for more IPs or they are restricted as new LIRs are. For all people who are going to say "Move to IPv6" I already did it. About 75% of my network is IPv6 ready. 100% of our backbone network is IPv6 but, as all of you can see, only 18% of the World ASes are IPv6 ( http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6?s=_ALL;s=_RIR_APNIC;s=_RIR_AfriNIC;s=_RIR_ARIN;s… ) and IPv6 wont work for anybody if the rest of the world isnt IPv6 ready. To be honest, I think IPv6 will not be ready before lot of us (new lirs)run out of IPv4 address while old LIRs have thousands and thousands of unused IP address and they sell them for really expensive price. I saw one in the listing service asking for at least 2 digits per IP... 2 digits! for something they got for free in the past. Again, I know, IPv4 is exhausted but this cant be used for making lot and fast money from new LIRs that only have /22 allocation and need more. I wonder if a change proposal of the policy to allow to ask for more IPs, of course proving the use of the ones you already have, and only giving /24's would be accepted by the community or I will get flamed for making the proposal. Please, feel free to discuss about this if you are going to say something usefull. PS: Sorry about my english, if I didnt explained well about something, just tell me. I will not feel offended. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).

25 112

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Tore Anderson 13 Jul '14

13 Jul '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 «RIPE NCC Registration Services expects that this proposal will have a very positive effect on the accuracy and consistency of the RIPE Registry as the resource holders will have more incentive to properly request and document transfers of PI assignments.» And that's why we have a registry in the first place, is it not? +1 Tore

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Alex Le Heux 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Hi Marco, The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite guidance from the RIPE communityŠ What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? There¹s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ³guided", from informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the articles of association, and many steps in between ;) Regards, Alex Le Heux On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >"Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. > > >Regards, > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 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: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Jul '14

10 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" 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: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Question about Last /8 Policy
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 08 Jul '14

08 Jul '14

Hi all, This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. If they dont need it anymore, it should be returned to RIPE. Only allowed transfers of /22 from last /8 should be: - When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now. This will help to dont especulate with the last /8 and will help slowing the depletion. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza(a)tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.

9 14

the solution to v4 runout?
by Jim Reid 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

I think this might be the answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28125336 Perhaps the RIRs could come up with a definition of "chores" that LIRs have to complete in order to get (time-limited?) use of a v4 address. :-)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
by Lu 02 Jul '14

02 Jul '14

Let's put it that way, it is over, so let it be it. Opening the pandora box won't changing the end results. Plus current /8 maybe able last long time-- in which is a good thing. Lu > On 2014年7月2日, at 下午12:00, 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: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 2. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 4. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Jim Reid) > 5. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a > /8 I want to start this topic again. > And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 > IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > Please, comment it. > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know >> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP >> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... >> >> Regards, >> >> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>>> >>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>>> those >>>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >>> >>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gTQMS7nsq0JP3m=YawfFhOMYkaWAV1X17bh4W9vxkK9ZQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> Should be use the Available IP Pool >> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door > for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this > was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what > would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next > upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? > > Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to > undo this change. > > > Sorry, > Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca >> <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >>> Should be use the Available IP Pool >>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po…), >>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? >> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door >> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this >> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what >> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next >> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? >> >> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to >> undo this change. > I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with > only a /22). > I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have > Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 > enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, > etc.) dont support it. > Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for > possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since > transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it. > > I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if > one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have > 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help > on IPv6 deployment. > > To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something > similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 > > Regards, > >> >> Sorry, >> Richard > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <B485997B-74D9-402A-AFC8-A43A45A99717(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. > > I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. > > You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. > > To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600(a)tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Jim, > > You understandme wrong or I did not said it well. > Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer > to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, > IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack > or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4. > My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job > on IPv6 deployment. > > About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, > but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 > is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen > then. > > But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing > their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them > (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since > there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will > have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. > > A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in > expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the > time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. > > Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not > have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way > so you all can understand what Im trying to say. > > Regards, > > El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?: >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca <datos(a)tvt-datos.es> wrote: >> >>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. >> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. >> >> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. >> >> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 > ************************************************

1 0