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

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

New on RIPE Labs: 15,000 LIRs
by Nick Hyrka 28 Dec '16

28 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Now that we've reached 15,000 LIRs, a new article on RIPE Labs looks at the growth of our membership and the impact this will have on the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/15-000-local-internet-registries Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, One of the RIPE 73 RACI fellows, Ioana Livadariu, presented an interesting study about the IPv4 transfer market at the RIPE Meeting in Madrid. She now published this study also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-the-ipv4-transfer-ma… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Dec '16

21 Dec '16

Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio). So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can’t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no “normative” issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let’s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** 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.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

Hi Leo, I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Responder a: <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es" <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** 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.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can´t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you’re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Responder a: <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** 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

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Dec '16

14 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 10

Proceeding with proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification)
by Sander Steffann 27 Nov '16

27 Nov '16

Hello working group, The end of the discussion phase of proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification) has been reached. At this point in the PDP the proposer, in agreement with the working group chairs, decides whether to move forward. The chairs have determined that we have general consensus that the use-cases described in the proposal are valid ways to use PI space and the policy should reflect that. However there has been discussion on the exact way to fix the policy. The proposer has told us that he wants to continue with the current proposal and continue to the review phase. We decided to agree with this and go to review phase. The RIPE NCC will make an impact analysis and based on that we can continue the discussion on the list, review the proposal and where necessary adjust the exact wording of the proposal. Cheers, Sander & Gert Your working group chairs

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6
by constanze buerger 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

+1 for the proposal Am 24.11.2016 22:29 schrieb <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net>: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Silvia Hagen) > 2. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) > 3. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Carsten Br?ckner) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:59:00 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch> > To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal > (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E70ABF899B@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear WG > > > > I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of > subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It > also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated > initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria. > > > > Silvia Hagen > > Chair Swiss IPv6 Council > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von Marco Schmidt > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising > the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and > Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" > > is now available for discussion. > > > > The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation > requirements with the initial allocation requirements. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to < > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 23 > December 2016. > > > > Regards, > > > > Marco Schmidt > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > >

2 1