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

2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
by Emilio Madaio 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

Dear Colleagues, The IPv6 WG Chairs have decided that the proposal 2010-06 is ready for a 2 week Review Phase. Marco Hogewoning did not participate to the decision as he is a co-proposer. Following the feedback received, the draft documents for this proposal have been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-06.html and the draft documents at: http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-481-draft2010-06.html http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2010-06.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 60 Address Policy WG Meeting approved and published
by Emilio Madaio 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

Dear colleagues, The minutes from the Address Policy Working Group session from RIPE 60 were approved during RIPE 61. The minutes are available here: http://ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/minutes.html Best Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 5/8 and 37/8 from the IANA in November 2010. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size for these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html> Additionally, please note that three "pilot" prefixes will be announced from each /8. The prefixes are: 5.0.0.0/16 5.1.0.0/21 5.1.24.0/24 37.0.0.0/16 37.1.0.0/21 37.1.24.0/24 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the draft document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks" which can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html> Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkz2My0ACgkQXOgsmPkFrjOT7wCgnNa0eUFwK/ebtSeus3YgMoxZ GnUAnRAPMBMth/eSgX2F/opnY0fQI+Co =z5iw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

2010-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Frequent Update Request)
by Emilio Madaio 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposal has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-09.html Reason for withdrawal: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 61. A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-01 Last Call for Comments (Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies)
by Emilio Madaio 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 28 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-10 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
by Emilio Madaio 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html Reason for withdrawal: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 61. A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-02 Last Call for Comments (Allocations from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 26 Nov '10

26 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2010-02 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 24 December 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-02 is going to Last Call
by Sander Steffann 26 Nov '10

26 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The Review Phase for the RIPE policy proposal 2010-02 ended on 4 November. Community feedback to the list was mainly positive. Some comments noted that the potential advantages outweigh any disadvantages, and that the major arguments against the proposal had been addressed and clarified during the AP WG session at RIPE 61. Therefore, it has been decided to move the proposal to Last Call. Sander Steffann Address Policy WG co-chair

1 0

Unique prefixes for all proposals
by Richard Hartmann 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

Hi all, I am aware that this list is not ideal for my concern; I simply defaulted to the least inappropriate list. One of my pet peeves is that the RIRs use clashing naming schemes for their proposals. If someone talks about proposal 2010-1 and does not provide context, there is an unnecessary burden on people figuring out if this the RIPE's or the ARIN's proposal they are talking about. The solution is simpe: A unique prefix. Possible suggestions for prefixes include: * ripe- The obvious choice. Short, precise, lower case. A potential problem is that once ripe documents reach a certain count, there might be confusion over the proposal ripe-2020-1 vs the document ripe-2010, i.e. that there is nothing specifying that we are talking about a proposal. * ripe-proposal- Unique, but long. * ripe-draft- Unique, not 100% correct with RIPE's naming scheme, but shorter. * ripe-prop- Unique, similar to how APNIC and AfriNIC handle things. * RIPE- Unique, short, somewhat ugly, does not specify that this is a proposal. Analogous to how LACNIC handles it. I am not sure if this warrants its own proposal which is why I am simply throwing the issue out in the open to see what the community at large thinks about this issue. Personally, I would tend towards "ripe-prop-". It's reasonably short but leaves room for expansion (ripe-doc-, etc) and unification. Any and all feedback welcome :) Richard

22 44

2008-07 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
by Emilio Madaio 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

Dear Colleagues, The proposed change to RIPE Document has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html The reason for withdrawal is: the proposer decided to withdraw the proposal. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0