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

2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Same here, sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, a bit overloaded with daily work, but just read all the thread, and I'm supporting it. Further I can add some data. I've participated in APNIC 47, and prop-127, which is mention in this proposal, reached consensus. I've also discussed the same topic in the LACNIC mailing list, and I'm considering a similar proposal there. To be clear, I'm talking about the same as APNIC prop-127, which is moving the maximum allocation from /22 to /23. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, but just read all the thread and the impact analysis, and I'm supporting as well. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

PA – life after death
by Maxim A Piskunov 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

Hi Guys! As I understand "NetUP Ltd." will loose their PA-addresses if LIR status will not recovered and customers will should renumbering their networks. I have one simple question: why not specified procedure of keeping originally allocated addresses for case when LIR-status under cancellation and LIR can't transfer PA to another LIR. Or I miss something and chance to keep addresses is exists?

15 35

2018-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

Dear colleagues, The policy proposal 2018-02, "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" has been withdrawn. This proposal aimed to clarify the definition of "Assign" in the IPv6 Policy (section 2.6). The proposal is archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer decided it was best to find agreement on a problem statement before developing new policy text. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Personal data in the RIPE Database
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Colleagues I have just sent a message to the Database Working Group about personal data in the RIPE Database and the next step. As this impacts slightly on address policy, which explicitly refers to contact data, and it may involve member services to manage any cleanup of data, I would appreciate input from the members of these two working groups. Perhaps you can check the message on the DB-WG list and respond with your thoughts on that list. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG

1 0

IPv6 PI justification requirements
by Cynthia Revström 27 Feb '19

27 Feb '19

Hello ap-wg, I am in the process of requesting 3x /48 of IPv6 PI for a customer, and what confuses me is that the NCC requires way more justification for 3x /48 of PI than for 2x /29 of PA. I do think that saying something like net1 will be used in the Netherlands, net2 in London, and net3 in New York should be enough. I mean after all, any LIR can get 512K /48s and unlike ASNs, PI space does have a small fee attached with it. I can't think of a good reason why this is the case. Once again to make it clear, if you are a member it is easier to get 1 million /48s than it is for a non member to get 3 /48s. - Cynthia

9 14

2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 5 March 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer

28 102

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing, IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Willy MANGA 09 Feb '19

09 Feb '19

Hi, > From: Peter Hessler <phessler(a)theapt.org> > Then come back when you have a solution to force GitHub, Twitter, > Amazon, and a lot more, to launch an IPv6 version of their website. Hopefully it will come soon. At least all have already v6 prefixes used 'inside' their own networks ..

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing, IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Willy MANGA 09 Feb '19

09 Feb '19

Hi, >[...] > From: Carlos Fria?as <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> > [...] > I've been deploying and advocating IPv6 since 2001. Others have been doing > it for a longer period. Within this timespan, i have only read about *one* > organisation which publicly expressed plans to scrap IPv4 from their > network/services, but they have dropped that in the meanwhile... Please don't tell me it's the IPv4 disposal technician [1] team :) 1. https://youtu.be/cNMQUCeNW78?t=2176 -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Gert Doering 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Corin Langosch wrote: > further why this should be a problem? Usage based billing is very much "usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create at the NCC", which is about what we have now. What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable asset. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

4 3