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

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 05 Nov '12

05 Nov '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Last Call for Comments has ended. After the feedback received, a new draft (3.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community comments. The highlights of the changes in response of the community's request include: -use of the hyphen for "sub-domain". The Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to extend the Last Call period until 19 November 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this new version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 19 November 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Roger Jørgensen 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: <snip> > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. I support the proposal and the "fast-tracking" as discussed by others. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Tore Anderson 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

Hi, I invite everyone that supports this proposal to publicly say so by posting a message to the list, so that the proposal will hopefully be fast-tracked by the WG chairs. * Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. I have a small nit to pick with the impact analysis, which says: The allocation and assignment periods will no longer be three months. Said periods will become: [...] - For assignments: 24 months. That is not what the proposal says. It makes no mention of 24 months anywhere. What it does say, is: Assignments’ immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined. Therefore, if the end user's usage is increasing exponentially over time, his maximum assignment period will be less than 24 months. On the other hand, if the end user's usage is increasing at a slower and slower pace over time, his maximum assignment period will be longer than 24 months. In any case, the text in question is the exact same as it used to be before Run Out Fairly was implemented. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

6 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012102901001081] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Addre [...]
by James Blessing 31 Oct '12

31 Oct '12

On 31 October 2012 10:34, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info(a)leadertelecom.ru> wrote: >> but the information about the transfers is derivable from the RIPE DB > > Yes, but this database too much ditry information and very difficult analyse > it. If you will secure something - you can place it in safe place, but more > effective way to put it in public with different information :-) So you are agreeing that publishing the information about transfers is a good idea to make it easier to see transfers being made? J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

2 1

2010-06 New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly')
by Emilio Madaio 30 Oct '12

30 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is no longer a future event. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 27 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-05 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. The main changes in the new version are: -use of a bullet point layout for the proposal text; -anonymous reports of non-approved transfers. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 12 November 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

IGF session on IP address policy
by Milton L Mueller 29 Oct '12

29 Oct '12

On the afternoon of the first day of the Internet Governance Forum, there will be a workshop on "What is the best response to IPv4 scarcity? Exploring a global transfer market for IPv4 addresses." It will be moderated by myself and Geoff Huston, Chief Scientist at APNIC. There will also be a main session discussion of the topic the next day. The workshop will take a unique format. It will be organized not as a series of panelists speaking _at_ an audience, but as a structured, multi-stakeholder deliberation over policy alternatives among peers. It will test the extent to which the various stakeholders interested in that issue can come to agreement on a set of five basic policy issues affecting IPv4 number resources. The five policy issues we will discuss are: the role of needs assessment in market trades; the status of legacy number block holders; the accuracy of post-transaction records; aggregation policies market power For each of these issues two or three opposing positions are set out, and the workshop will attempt to document who takes which position, why, and whether the group can come to rough consensus on one position or some new compromise position formulated on the spot. The panel is scheduled for 14:30 - 16:00 on 6 November, the first day of the IGF, in Conference Room 9. Although the actual remote participation link for this session has not yet been created by the IGF Secretariat, this page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation provides general information and guidance regarding how the IGF will facilitate remote participation. Baku's time zone is 9 hours ahead of US Eastern time, and 3 hours ahead of Continental European time. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

1 0

Seen this?: (Was: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1)
by Ondřej Surý 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

Hi, seems like it has begun... :( (I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...) I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected. Regards, Ondrej Sury Begin forwarded message: > From: "IP Brokerage" <info@anonymized-don't-want-to-spread-contact-me-offlist-if-you-need-original> > Subject: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1 > Date: 17. října 2012 18:52:24 GMT+02:00 > Reply-To: info@xxx > > Confidential For: XXXXXXXXX > > We are contacting you to participate in a bidding process for the lease or potential sale of IPv4 address space. IPv4 is transitioning and will soon be replaced by IPv6. We encourage you to take this opportunity to monetize your IPv4 assets before they become obsolete. > > RxxxMxxxxx_IP is currently seeking to enter into direct lease agreements for large netblocks of currently unused IP space. We pay market lease rates via wire transfer and are accustomed to closing transactions quickly. Our lease of your IP space will be governed by a customary Service Level Agreement (SLA) and no abusive practices will be permitted or tolerated. References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request. > > Leasing your excess IPv4 space allows you to generate income, while retaining ownership of your IPv4 allocations for future use or ultimate sale. > > If your organization (XXXXXXXX) has an underperforming IPv4 subnet, such as -1.-1.-1.-1 or some other range of any size, and you are interested in monetizing this asset immediately, for any duration or terms, please contact me or complete the RFP (request for proposal) questionnaire below and return it to my attention at info@xxxxxx. > > Thank you for your participation in our RFP process, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > I am interested in monetizing my IPv4 Assets: > > > Company Name: > Size or number of IPs available for lease: > Identify Range (CIDR): > email: > Phone number: > Proposed start date for lease: > > > RxxxMxxxx_IP is also actively engaged in buying and selling IP address space. Please let us know if this is of interest to you as well. > > John Blank > Business Development > RxxxMxxxxx_IP > Of . xxx.xxx.xxx > Sk . xxxxxx > -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------

5 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Sergey Myasoedov 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity. There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough. Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote: SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 >>PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*. -- Sergey

3 2

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

Hello, We very specialised company. We kind in niche in Russia. As I calculated we are 2-nd by size LIR by count of sponsored PI-networks, for example. So, it’s only small number of companies need this changes? > >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide > this Ps. They will give us this work. > Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR? While main business in telecom. And they wont sell IPs. Just ask LIRs - who can provide IPs? I’ve already answered your last question. According to the initial provisions: if a LIR doesn’t have people, or salespersons, or wishes, or time, or everything else to distribute IPs –then I’m in doubt the company will got the abovementioned things to bother to suballocate. My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough! No, not enought. IPs will be reselled, but without registration in RIPE. Would you like it? I think better give instrument for comunity for simple distribution IPv4. In other cases you can forget about whois. If it will be impossible to register changes - then you will see old information. It is possible to register changes. It will be possible to register changes. Reselling without registering to RIPE would led to dealing with all network problems by registered company, which is not very productive in the modern black-and-white listing world. By the way – now (I know that very well) there are several companies that already use this cheating (for several reasons) and they did this thing for several years to now even at that time (when they began) there was no IP exhaustion. And what? The RIR-LIR-EU system is here and works well. >> … If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right. It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it. Ok. But what about current transfers? They are “needs based” and you pay for service (mostly once). Regards, Vladislav

1 0