October 2016 - address-policy-wg

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition) You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 October 2016. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

8 8

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marius Cristea 18 Nov '16

18 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, Over the last years RIPE NCC has imposed a "rule" that when the last IPs are transferred the transferring LIR has to pay the full annual membership fee (even if the LIR was not a member of RIPE for that entire year). I think that if this is something everybody agrees with, it should be inserted into the policy text to make this very clear. But if not, then maybe it would be useful to add a text which would simply say that RIPE NCC should relate exclusively on this policy when processing transfer requests and is not mandated by the RIPE community in imposing any kind of abusive taxes. I also have a problem with the 24 months period of keeping the IPv4 addresses after merging 2 companies. It's exactly our case, we want to buy and merge with a telecom company and we will no longer need all their IPv4 addresses since we have more than enough by merging both companies resources. We want to transfer a part of the IP addresses to other Company that really need them. Why to wait 24 months? Best Regards, Marius Cristea

11 32

2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '16

17 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

18 30

ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action
by Sander Steffann 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

Hello working group, The discussion on how the RIPE NCC should deal with ALLOCATED PI / ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED has died down a couple of weeks ago. We therefore think that it is time to draw conclusions. A total of 16 people and the working group chairs participated in the discussion following Ingrid’s proposal on how to handle the situation of PI assignments within ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED. Five people (Sergey Myasoedov, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN, Nick Hilliard, Leo Vegoda and Hank Nussbacher) created side-threads without expressing an explicit opinion on the proposal. The remaining 11 people were: − Patrick Velder − Larisa Yurkina − Randy Bush − Enno Rey − Herve Clement − Stefan Schiele − Markus Weber − Carlos Friacas − Leo Vegoda − Andre Chapuis − Daniel Stolpe − Oliver Bartels Four participants stated that they represent organisations holding such allocations (Larisa, Markus, Andre and Daniel). Three people indicate that they are related to PI assignments within such allocations (Enno, Stefan and Oliver). Five people stated their clear support for the proposal (Enno, Stefan, Oliver, Patrick and Herve), mainly to increase clarity for PI assignment user and to support correct registration. While there was no explicit opposition, Larisa and Andre stated that it would create extra workload for their organisations while they don’t really see the gains of such change. Larisa suggested to introduce alternative RIPE database statuses instead. The other participants had mixed opinions: Markus understands the advantages for PI assignment users, but was concerned about the extra workload for his organisation. He suggested to somehow lock PI’s within the allocations and force the PI holders to sign contracts, but recognized that this idea might be not practicable. Daniel could life with the change from ASSIGNED PI to ASSIGNED PA but agreed with Larisa and Andre that there is actually no issue to be fixed. Randy supported the aim of correct registration but also stated his concerns about the routing table and that some PI holders might not be happy to pay a fee for the sponsoring LIR. Carlos also stated his concerns for the routing table. Conclusion: Five people supported the proposed approach, four people saw some advantages but also were concerned about side effects, while two people didn’t see the need to take action. There were three opposing arguments: - big workload compared to the gain - increase of the routing table - PI holders might not like to pay a fee for the sponsorship The first opposing argument can be considered as addressed as three PI users confirmed that a clarification of that issue would be very important to them. And the RIPE NCC can support the LIRs, for example making bulk updates on route and domain objects. The second opposing argument, could be considered that this is not directly related to the fixing of the registration. Already now all but one of the allocations in question contain more specific route advertisements. Also in the extem case that all ASSIGNED PI within the allocations would be carved out, we would talk few thousand new entries in regards to 628K total routing entries (normal growth of the routing table is around 2K per week). The third opposing argument was addressed by Gert, stating that PI holders appreciate to pay a small fee to be sure that their resources are correctly registered. Based on all of this I feel we have a strong enough mandate for the RIPE NCC to move forward, but some concerns about the amount of work involved. I therefore would like to ask the RIPE NCC on behalf of this working group to move forward with their plan, but to extend the proposed deadline of the end of January 2017 by a few months (the end of Q1 2017) to give LIRs a little bit more time if needed. Cheers, Sander APWG co-chair

6 6

RIPE 2016-03 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) abandoned, not yet withdrawn
by Sander Steffann 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Hello working group, Remco van Mook, the author of 2016-03, has decided to abandon the 2016-03 policy proposal. The reasons he has given are: - Not because of a lack of consensus - that’s for the chairs to decide - Out of embarrassment for the “discussion” and how it is damaging our community’s reputation - If anyone else wants to pick up from here, be my guest, but I think we need to discuss the process for that first. If there is anybody who wants to take over as the author of this policy proposal then please contact the working group chairs at apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net in the next two weeks. The deadline for authors to step forward is Friday the 11th of November. If nobody has offered to take over at that point the chairs will declare the proposal withdrawn. Cheers, Gert & Sander Your friendly neighbourhood working group chairs

1 0

2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool. Some of the differences from version 2.0 include: - Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer restriction - Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 available pool You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make your proposal evaluation easier. - Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right beside the list of proposal versions. - The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where the proposal is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is expected. We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 November 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

41 91

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Ciprian Nica 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi, I've sent this only to Marco instead of replying to the list. Please see my comments below. Ciprian On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that > facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I > think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be > able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer > statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE > and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process. > > There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned > in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps > the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although > there's the new "created" attribute. > > For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and > it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new > allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914. > > If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be > simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014 > > Ciprian > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt(a)ripe.net');>> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE >> Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact >> analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all >> relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. >> >> Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: >> >> - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to >> the new transfer policy document >> - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers >> due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or >> acquisition) >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 >> >> And the draft documents at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < >> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net');>> before 26 >> October 2016. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum >> >> >

6 19

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Plesa Niculae 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae <niculae(a)plesa.ro> wrote: > > Hi Steffann, > > I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you to make it public. > Why are you tell me that I make an attack? Attack on who? Attack or defend a member that was in the cross fire of chairs & friends? Please read all the messages and you will see that Ciprian was under attack, he was the one first receiving insults and fight back only after. > > My answers to your comments are as follows: > > - the facts are that Gert got IPs from the last /8 just 2 weeks before he did the merger and he also keeps a /22 out of the last /8 for over 2 years without being announced. This shows that he got the IPs even if he didn't actually need them. This is not against the policies but it’s at least immoral. > > - he compared actions not people and telling somebody to shut up is a severe offence. I saw some do not want to be democratic and civilised but I didn’t expect group leaders to support such an authoritarian attitude. > > - I understand how the policy works. I don’t understand when open for discussion means “praise us and our ideas and shut up if you have anything to say against it as we don't care about your opinions"! > > I hope I was clear and straight with the explanations of my intervention. I have no other reasons than democracy, justice and common sense. I can’t look and do nothing when I saw somebody not treated correct because he had a different opinion than the leaders. > > Best Regards, > Niculae Plesa > > >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 22:27, Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> wrote: >> >> Hello Plesa, >> >> Replying off-list because I don't want to drag this out any further. >> >>> I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised. >> >> What facts? That one of the working group chairs works at an ISP and has merged with another ISP? There was nothing to discuss there, and the baseless allegations made by Ciprian were not worth responding to. Gert kindly responded anyway, and there is nothing more to discuss. >> >>> Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks bullshit and nobody complain about that language! >> >> I'm sorry, but calling an argument bullshit vs using very offensive language like calling people Nazi's, comparing people to Hitler etc are in completely different leagues. Telling someone to shut up is not polite, but it's completely understandable after the abhorrent language used by Ciprian. >> >>> So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of speaking is I N C O R R E C T ! >> >> Comparing people to Hitler and Nazi's is more than colourful language and figures of speech. Ciprian apparently understood that, as he has publicly apologised. >> >> Now, let's discuss policy again, without hateful language, insults and allegations. >> >>> I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian, Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up. >> >> Don't worry, those voices have been heard. >> >>> I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing the existing policy. >> >> Noted. >> >>> By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient quorum raises a HUGE question mark. >> >> It was Ciprian making the attacks. And now you apparently. This end right now. These baseless accusations against proposers and chairs are unacceptable. The company that Gert works for has merged with another company, nothing more. I personally have never sold or bought address space at all. This "business in transferring IPs" of the chairs exists only in your imagination. Stop these allegations. >> >> From your comments it is clear that you don't understand how policy development works in RIPE: >> >> - someone from the community makes a proposal >> - the working group chairs have no stake in the proposal >> - the RIPE Policy Development Process is how we handle such proposals >> - there are clearly defined discussion and review phases for debate >> - decision making is based on rough consensus, not "quorum" >> - there is a proper appeals procedure if you think the chairs have made a wrong decision >> >> And that's all. >> Sander >> >

2 1

Thank you to the chairs
by Richard Hartmann 22 Oct '16

22 Oct '16

Dear chairs, as it's all too easy to forget the amount of work that some people dedicate to keeping their particular corners of the Internet sane and cleant, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your work. Thank you. Enjoy your wooly-headed selfs next week, Richard

1 0

2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Andrew de la Haye 21 Oct '16

21 Oct '16

Dear Peter, > [from the impact assessmant] > > Returned IPv4 addresses from LIRs and End Users and addresses received > from IANA's recovered pool are currently added to the RIPE NCC's > available IPv4 pool. >If this proposal is accepted, legacy resources > that have been handed over to the RIPE NCC will also be added to the > available pool. Currently, the RIPE NCC >holds a total of ten /24 IPv4 > legacy resources. > > With apologies for lack of research; under what policy was this space > "accepted" > and not marked for return to IANA? There is no policy to give us guidance on what to do with received legacy space. However, the RIPE NCC has previously taken the initiative and returned address space to IANA on two separate occasions: 22 May 2012 https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-returns-legac… 22 April 2014 https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/legacy-ipv4-address-sp… More recently, we have kept this address space separate and have not added it to our available pool. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

2 1