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

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement
by Arash Naderpour 10 May '16

10 May '16

Hi Sebastian, I understand your point but please consider that setting up a new LIR does not mean you are immediately eligible to receive additional /22. - allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request - Allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. And you cannot transfer out your /22 for 2years, So affection to the depletion rate looks less than setting up multi LIR to receive immediately an /22 from 185/8 or encouraging small businesses in need of small blocks to become LIR. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Sebastian Benoit [mailto:benoit-lists@fb12.de] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:07 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc(a)parsun.com> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement Hi, Arash Naderpour(arash_mpc(a)parsun.com) on 2016.05.09 23:25:56 +1000: > Hi, > > This policy may actually reduce the depletion rate for last /8, but > without it the last /8 can be used more day by day. > In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they > need to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old > LIR cannot provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the > depletion of last / 8. have you considered these when you made your objection? > > This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a > possibility for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last > /8) based on some conditions, so no change in depletion rate from my point of view. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that 2015-05 will increase the depletion rate, not only because more address space will be handed out, but because it will make it more attractive (from a financial point of view) to set up a new LIR when you get more than a /22 out of it. That is, it might make the secondary market less attractive.

3 2

2015-05 proposal
by Fabio Zannicolò - Voix s.r.l. 09 May '16

09 May '16

Hi, I would like to share with you my opinion on Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal (2015-05). Today small companies have competitiveness problems due to lack of IPv4 resources. I consider unfair the current treatment, the big companies have stocks of IPv4 addresses. We need a balance between resource conservation and fair treatment, in addition to those already proposed my suggestions are: -allocations of a /22 every 18 months only from IPv4 Addresses Available Outside 185/8 to small LIRs (if LIR own < /20 of total allocations) -leave the current policy only for IPv4 Addresses Available in 185/8 to avoid the too fast depletion of resources -the addresses acquired with this system should not be able to be transferred for a long period of time to avoid profit Best regards, Fabio Zannicolò

3 3

Disabuse
by Rayanravesh Sena 07 May '16

07 May '16

Hi, My name is Borhan Habibi and my company name is Rayanravesh Sena, I sent my first email without noticing it has wrong from address field, so thought it would be better to resend it with my own name. I'm just one person, Hope it is clear to you and any one else got confused, Borhan Habibi

2 1

Support the 2015-05 Policy
by Rayanravesh Sena 06 May '16

06 May '16

I think this policy is fair, i support it. With luck, Borhan Habibi

2 1

additional /22
by Rayanravesh Sena 06 May '16

06 May '16

+1 2015-05

1 0

I support this policy
by info＠rivebit.com 05 May '16

05 May '16

I support this policy

3 3

additional /22
by Mojtaba Abolhasani 05 May '16

05 May '16

+1 to 2015-05

1 0

additional /22
by Mojtaba Abolhasani 05 May '16

05 May '16

+1 2015-05

1 0

Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update
by Sergiu IANCIUC 02 May '16

02 May '16

hello, PLS, take in consideration the situation Company X has a /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 spaces and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the space allocated to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to not be the part from the policy - "requirements, such as the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before." What are you thinking about? Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: http://www.itns.md Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... This is a forwarded message From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update ===8<==============Original message text=============== Dear colleagues, Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so on the relevant working group mailing list. Proposals Open for Discussion: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" Proposals Awaiting Input: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" Proposal Overviews: PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. STATUS: Discussion Phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 13 May 2016 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 ===== The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any further in the PDP. PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" OVERVIEW: Aims to create a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding period for scarce resources will be applied. STATUS: Review Phase – Awaiting decision from working group chair FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 PROPOSAL: 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" OVERVIEW: Aims for a mandatory abuse contact for Legacy Internet Resource holders in the RIPE Database. STATUS: Discussion Phase – Awaiting decision from proposer FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01 The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on www.ripe.net: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-… We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ===8<===========End of original message text===========

3 3

(no subject)
by mostafa shahdadi 30 Apr '16

30 Apr '16

-- Sent from Gmail Mobile

1 0