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

2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 05 Aug '10

05 Aug '10

PDP Number: 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8 Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2010-02 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. The draft policy document and the impact analysis for the proposal have also been published. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2010-02.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 4 August. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

12 15

New Draft Document: Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies
by Filiz Yilmaz 05 Aug '10

05 Aug '10

Dear Colleagues, At the RIPE 59 Meeting in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to improve the language of various RIPE Policy Documents, without changing their substance or meaning. This project is aimed at improving the clarity and readability of RIPE Documents. For more information, see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents A draft of the first RIPE Document to be revised, ripe-463, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures", was then published. The status of the project was presented at the RIPE 60 Meeting in Prague in May 2010, and new discussions and decisions ensued. The development of the project led to a second version of the draft. We have published this draft document in two layouts. The first layout contains only the proposed text, in full, and is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-inc-v2.html The second layout contains both the current text and the proposed text side by side, and it’s available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ASN-comp-v2.html At the top of both draft documents, there is a summary of the proposed changes. There are three changes we would like to highlight because they differ from the previous version of the draft. Abstract The abstract was edited to be more precise and comprehensive. Paragraph 5.0: Validity of an Assignment This paragraph was removed as per feedback from the RIPE community. Paragraph 8.0: Attribution This paragraph was added to note the participation of the people who made AS Number-related proposals through the RIPE Policy Development Process and who therefore contributed to the wording of the AS Number policy documents over time. During RIPE 60, the RIPE community agreed to use this method of attribution for all future RIPE Policy Documents. Other smaller changes are listed at the top of document. Please review the text and send any feedback you might have to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The period for review is two weeks and lasts until 29 July 2010. After the review period, the Address Policy Working Group Chairs will conclude whether or not there is consensus on the draft document. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

2010-02 Review Period has ended (Allocations from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 04 Aug '10

04 Aug '10

Dear Gert and Sander, The review period for the new RIPE Document described in proposal 2010-02 has ended. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html Please reply to this email to let us know how you would like to proceed. * Do you want to move the proposal to "Last Call"? The Last Call period is four weeks. * Do you want us to edit the draft document text? Please tell us the details that you want us to edit. * Do you want to extend the review period? Please let us know what date you wish to extend it to, and we will tell the RIPE community. * Do you want to withdraw this proposal? Please let us know your decision in the next seven days. Below a brief summary of the discussion in the Review Phase. Some observations were made on some points of the new proposal draft and on the possible consequences to the proposal implementation: -there should be a need to mention how the PI space will be handled (Tulyev, Davidson, Kuenzler); -it may be prudent to implement the policy on the last /8 contiguous block from IANA, rather than the potential fragmented last available /8 in the NCC address pool(Anderson); -possible situations when an LIR cannot justify an immediate need for a /22 (Anderson) and therefore a suggestion to allow extra /22 assignment overtime (Schliesser); -impossibility to assign Anycast address(Tulyev). The archived discussion is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2010/index-th… We look forward to your response. Kind Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 1

New Document available: RIPE-495
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE Document store: Ref: ripe-495 Title: Principles for Number Resource Registration Policies Author: Rob Blokzijl & Daniel Karrenberg Format: HTML & PDF Date: July 2010 Short content description ------------------------- This document sets out the principles for IPv4 address registration after the unallocated pool of addresses has run out. The purpose of this document is to expose the thinking of the authors, and encourage a discussion in the community. This is not a policy proposal. Once there is community consensus about these principles, the authors intend to instigate the development of appropriate policies. Accessing the RIPE Document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE Document in HTML format from our website at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-495.html The RIPE Document Store is also available over anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URL for the new document on the FTP-server is: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-495.pdf Regards Adrian Bedford Web Services Team Leader RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
by Emilio Madaio 20 Jul '10

20 Jul '10

PDP Number: 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP Dear Colleagues, The proposal has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-03.html The reason for withdrawal is: proposer decided to withdraw the proposal based on the feedback received at RIPE 60. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2010-03 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy State in RIPE PDP)
by Filiz Yilmaz 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

PDP Number: 2010-03 Global Policy State in RIPE PDP Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-03.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 18 May 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

5 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
by Max Tulyev 08 Jul '10

08 Jul '10

I'm about independence from upstream provider or other telecom-engaged entity, not about payments. Gennady A. написав(ла): > Which independency you are talking about? > Currently, PIs are not actually independent. To keep them running, PI > user also have to pay support fee, like if he uses PA address space. > > 2010/7/7 Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su>: >> Gennady, >> >> for now it is bad. But when there will be a lack of IPv4, we have to >> sacrifice aggregation in favour to conservation. >> >> The difference is the independence. PA is not. >> >> Gennady A. написав(ла): >>> Max, >>> /29 in the global routing table is a bad thing. >>> >>> Those who need multihoming may use PA address space. Now, when >>> contracts to support address space are necessery, there isn't much >>> dfference between PI and PA. >> -- >> WBR, >> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) >> >> > > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

1 0

Last call to participate: 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey
by Paul Rendek 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a last-call reminder to participate in the 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, conducted by GNKS Consult and TNO in collaboration with the RIPE NCC. The survey is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The deadline to complete the survey is this Thursday, 1 July 2010. All five Regional Internet Registries have committed to soliciting participation in this survey in order to compile the most complete global IPv6 deployment data possible. The goal of the survey is to gain a better understanding of where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. Any questions concerning the survey itself should be addressed to <info(a)gnksconsult.com>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

AW: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8)
by Marcus.Gerdon 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

Nick, although assignments might be out of scope here, but Max isn't strolling that far taking his thought logically. Is there a limitation on the size of a PI assignment in place at some time in any one of the lately changed policies? Without digging for any actual numbers out of daily business I'd say there's quite a number of assignments exceeding initial alloctions - and easily exceeding the proposed limit of /22 per LIR. Let me walk a bit further along Max' comment. As soon as I got that last /22 allocation which policy keeps me from requesting a /19 PI for our own use? As far as I remember (at least in v4-world) LIRs aren't excluded from PI policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according current practice moving all our dynamic DSL-pools into PI space would be quite valid as each customer only get's a single address with the sole purpose being the connection to our network (mirroring hosting/housing to circuit business). In addition as a LIR I might come to think of issues with equality in business when running into problems after having used up that last /22 and noticing that ISP running their business on PI space are able to further request addtional IP space. regards, Marcus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon(a)versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 22:00 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal > (Allocations from the last /8) > > On 16/06/2010 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote: > > I think, the policy is fair. > > > > But you completely forget the Provider Independent > assignments there! So > > I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there. > > This policy is about allocations (i.e. to LIRs), not assignments (i.e. > directly to end users). I don't think anyone forgot > assignments - they're > just outside the scope of the policy. > > Nick > >

2 1

2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup)
by Emilio Madaio 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

PDP Number: 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup Dear Colleagues A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 15 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

7 6