February 2017 - address-policy-wg

2016-05 Last Call for Comments (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 28 March 2017 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '17

10 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 9 March 2017 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 3

2016-05 going to last-call (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Sander Steffann 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Hello Working Group, The last review phase of 2016-05 (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) has just ended, and for this policy proposal a quick decision of the working group chairs was easy. There has only been positive feedback from you so we have declared consensus and asked the RIPE NCC to move the proposal to the Last Call phase. The positive feedback to the current version was from: - John Collins - Ian Dickinson - Sascha Knabe - Martin Krengel - Frank Meyer - Mathew Newton Thanks to the working group for working on this proposal, Sander Steffann RIPE APWG co-chair

1 0

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2

2016-05 I agree
by Frank Meyer 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen

3 2

RIPE 73 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 73 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-73 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Addressing in 2016 (by Geoff Huston)
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Feb '17

08 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, For those who missed Geoff Huston's article about "Addressing in 2016" on the APNIC blog, it is now also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/addressing-in-2016 "Let’s see what has changed in the past 12 months in addressing the Internet, and look at how IP address allocation information can inform us of the changing nature of the network itself." Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Matthieu Herrb 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Hi, sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected. My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI allocation would not violate the policy. Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the original proposal and Ondřej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost. In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay completely under his control, even though the systems using them are operated by his clients. This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small scale hosting). RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI space usage is really restricted for small entities. Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not using PI space for this kind of hosting ? Regards, -- Matthieu Herrb

1 0

2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. 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 and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 31 January 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

7 6

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Hi all, I just want to clarify that this version, compared with the initial version and the previous discussions in the list, has only minor grammar/clarifications edits and the main difference is that we have removed the HD-ratio change, to sync it with the actual HD-ration tables being used by the IPv6 policy. As you know, it is required by the PDP, in order to the WG chairs to judge if there is consensus, that you stated (or restate if you already done this in the previous phase), if you agree or not with this version. So please, go ahead, re-read it and provide your inputs to the list. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1