October 2016 - address-policy-wg

Fwd: Re: Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
by Elvis Daniel Velea 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear Sander, list, below is an e-mail sent on 8/29 which did not make it to the list. Dear RIPE NCC admins - please check and help me understand why the message forwarded below did not make it to the mailing list as the google mail server ( that is used to host my @velea.eu private e-mail address) shows it as delivered (in the Sent folder) and I did receive the (BCC'ed copy). - please note, I am hiding the IP address and the from host in the headers below with '*x*'. If you need these details, please send me a message privately and I will share the IP address and even the name of my workstation. Sander, please take this message into account as well. I hope/think that the message below could make a difference. I am sorry for reacting so late, I did not know that my message did not make it to the list until I saw Sander's message with the summary. Regards, Elvis -------- Forwarded Message -------- Return-Path: <elvis(a)velea.eu> Received: from *x* ([*x.x.x.x*]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i80sm14433191wmf.11.2016.08.29.10.09.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: elvis(a)velea.eu Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED References: <c988893b-d73d-4879-07b8-53ba50f4cfb5(a)ripe.net> <0a0dcd8a-a685-ed25-6837-0d807c370c21(a)velder.li> <57A31AAE.6060305(a)ripn.net> <m21t24zt1j.wl%randy(a)psg.com> <20160804113710.GJ79185(a)Space.Net> <m2y44cycc4.wl%randy(a)psg.com> <20160804121033.GK79185(a)Space.Net> <b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> Message-ID: <48d42760-80dc-2e37-a436-e5ff46de00a3(a)velea.eu> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:09:37 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869(a)ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everyone, On 8/5/16 4:41 PM, Ingrid Wijte wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > >>>> Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was >>>> originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller fragments >>>> in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - so the /14 >>>> won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics. >>> lemme see if i get this. to have the owner registration correct, some >>> address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple IRs, thus >>> fragmenting routing? i like correct registration, but the commons has >>> become pretty polluted. > > The main issue that we (the WG and the RIPE NCC) are trying to resolve > is the lack of clarity around the status and rights of these > assignments. It’s not necessarily the case that the End User > registration is incorrect. In many cases LIRs have put a lot of effort > into keeping this information up to date. I believe that since these were PI assignments - the holdership/ownership/call-it-whatever of the IP addresses stays with the company to which this IP block was registered - the PI holder. If the holder of the PI assignment agrees with the change of the block from ASSIGNED PI to PA, that will mean they are giving up on their right to hold/transfer the PI block. I think the main issue here is: who owns the rights of these IP addresses? If it's the LIR (because it was an allocation) - then they could kick the end-user out at any time. If it's the end-user - well, they should sign maintenance agreements as every PI holder and get those PIs under the same rules as everyone else's. I know of at least a few cases where the end-users have requested a PI assignment and have received one. However, some of them have received the PI assignments (approved by the RIPE NCC) from an ALLOCATED PI block while others have received them directly from the RIPE NCC. In both cases, the only one communicating with the RIPE NCC was the LIR. The end-users had no idea of the difference between the two PI blocks. That is why I believe that the NCC should talk to every PI holder from those PI/unspecified allocations and see if they - the end-users - the holders of the IP addresses - want to have the PI sponsored by an LIR (and therefore sign a maintenance agreement) or if they may want the IP block to be transferred to the LIR holding the large allocation (and transformed into ASSIGNED PA). The first step - talking to the allocation holder (the LIR) - is logical. However, if you only talk to the LIR you will only see one side of the story. It should be, I believe, the end-user that should decide whether they give up on their right to those IPs which now have become assets and are worth money. Therefore, I think that the RIPE NCC should talk to every single company holding a PI assignment from an ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED block and give them the option to give up on the maintenance of the IPs (and the right to transfer/sell) and transform them into ASSIGNED PA, or become a PI user - like all the others in the world - and sign a maintenance agreement with a LIR (and have the €50/year associated cost). regards, elvis

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Richard Hartmann 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear all, I support this proposal. I would once again urge that the default view in the PDP process should be diffs. While I could find diffs between proposal versions on the PDP site, there was no obvious way to diff current text against current proposal version. Richard

5 7

2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Plesa Niculae 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear all, 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. 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! 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 ! 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. 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. 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. Best Regards, Niculae Plesa

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
by Ciprian Nica 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > > > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong > but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. > > In your (utterly flawed) opinion. > > I respect everyone's opinion and especially yours. > I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of this list have > absolute confidence in the integrity of the WG’s co-chairs. If you think > you can do better, feel free to stand the next time the appointment process > runs. > > I never care about the majority and I don't think that should be a standard. Time has proven that sometimes majorities are wrong. > > As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. > > There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Gert (or > Sander) are “taking sides”. > Supporting an idea and ignoring someone based on personal feelings means taking sides. > > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be > judging others ? > > Here’s a simple rhetorical question for you. Do you think making > unjustified ad-hominem attacks and insults like the above will encourage > support for your position on this policy proposal? > > Your behaviour here is unacceptable and way, way, way out of line. > > With power comes responsibility. And yes, we should question our "leaders" all the time. This is not something wrong, it's helpful for keeping the balance. > > Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your > interests ? > > No. That’s *my* job. :-) > > Until you apologise and learn how to conduct yourself properly on this > list, Ciprian SHUT UP. Unsubscribe, shut up, go away... Next time you'll send me to a concentration camp ? No I WILL NOT SHUT UP ! I will always express my opinion even if I'm the only one in the world supporting it. A great romanian said that the best definition of democracy is "I will fight till my last drop of blood so you will have the right to disagree with me". I know many don't like it and prefer to solve matters by putting the fist into minority's mouth. Who'll be next in line to be "killed" tomorrow ? Ciprian

3 4

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies): The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense. I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly? Best Regards Niculae Plesa

4 3

niculae@plesa.ro
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

niculae(a)plesa.ro

1 0

APWG agenda for Madrid - first draft
by Gert Doering 17 Oct '16

17 Oct '16

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Madrid in the following time slots: Wednesday, Oct 26, 10:00 - 11:30 (+1 hour!!) Wednesday, Oct 26, 12:00 - 13:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 10:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE 72 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 50 min 2015-04 RIPE Resource Transfer Policies Erik Bais 2016-03 Locking Down the Final /8 Policy Remco van Mook G. consequences of the end of IPv4 15 min Erik Bais (presentation only, think about over coffee, discuss later) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back G. consequences of the end of IPv4 30 min Erik Bais (discussion with the group) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 45 min (+ discussion with the group) Y. Open Policy Hour 15 min The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity. Z. AOB -- 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

1 2

New on RIPE Labs: Supporting IPv6 Deployment Through Policy
by Marco Schmidt 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, It was about a year ago that the RIPE community reached consensus on a policy proposal that introduced additional criteria for initial IPv6 allocations. We thought it was time to look back the origins of this proposal and see how the change has worked out since: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/supporting-ipv6-deployment-thro… Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

(no subject)
by 8lb. 7zin 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

Monday, June 9, 2014 at 14:49:33 +0200, Joao Damas wrote: > At a recent meeting RIPE 68 there was a discussion about the issues > On the return of the recovered version for 16-bit ASNs by the NCC and RIPE > Possible modifications to the content of the qualities related guidance in > Data RIPE database objects, a guidance autnum politics features >. As is set things > > The consensus was noted during the meeting include: > > - The National Coordinating Committee RIPE not to remove all references to recovered ASNs for > Import and export lines, not Kkainat- SET. Directive > Policies owner of the object world and have nothing to do > Personalization data. > - NCC RIPE inform the maintainer of the object that contains > Outdated for this reference signal. The NCC also offer RIPE > Support for the breadwinner to delete the reference. > - NCC RIPE start reset referred to numbers once and > It is a reference gathering of 16-bit AS numbers have been exhausted. > > We would like to close the case, and be able to provide clear guidance > NCC RIPE so we would like to get confirmation of this result > Also from the mailing lists of the Working Group. This is not a matter of policy: > We have been dealing with the redistribution of ASNs for recovered with by the APWG, and > The current number of modifications to the database objects associated with the RIPE > Return to the rechargeable customization resources. We suggest 15 days > Comment period, ending June 24, 2014. I love that. Best Regards, Function

1 0