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

Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Infinity Telecom SRL 11 May '15

11 May '15

Hello, If this proposal will be accepted: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 The price per IP found at "IPv4 Transfer Listing Service" will be double or even worst. Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them. To pay double or even more for some spammed IP.. its not a good choice.. only because smart guys with no real internet business hold very large blocks This proposal should have more time, its not like any other proposal, this can affect activity for a lot of small companies. Thank you. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis(a)infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact(a)infinitytelecom.ro

28 123

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 09 May '15

09 May '15

Hi all, speaking for the LIR requesting IPv6 space for the government authorities in Switzerland I support the proposed policy change. Whereas the existing policy wording promotes a non-wasteful use of addresses, it prevents the implementation of addressing plans that are aligned with federated organisational structures where the principle of subsidiarity is followed and members are highly autonomous. Such addressing plans may be required in large organisations or federations of autonomous states, which in addition to membership of the containing whole, may require autonomous routing and addressing plans. kind regards, John Collins ch.swissgov FOITT An IT Service Provider of the Swiss Federal Administration

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Ivan Bulavkin 06 May '15

06 May '15

> ... and reading this I think the policy must be strictly changed. I do > not exactly know the wording of RIPE membership rules, but if you set up > a "Verein" in Germany (and this is more or less the type which matches > best the legal form RIPE NCC has) you are recommended to put something > like "each and every person who is willingly doing any harm to the club, > it's reputation or other members is to be kicked out without any right > for compensations. All rights this person has be being member are > immediately withdrawn. The exclusion from the club does not reduce the > any regress against the excluded member". > Except this is not policy (done by the RIPE community), but a RIPE NCC > affair. Changes like this are to be decided in general meeting with > approval from a majority of members (including the incriminated LIRs and > people that may not understand what this is all about). > Discussing such issues shoud be done ont the APWG mailing list, but on > the members-discuss or a membership-related mailing list. > Please also take into account that people having a right to vote at the > NCC GM are not always the same as the ones active here. > But the idea is not bad. > I see, that it is not possible to prevent every bypassing, but I think > someone who is even spaming and advertising sale of resources shall be > kicked out RIPE NCC immediately and all resources this person or > enterprise ever requested should be withdrawn! In 2010, 2011, 2012 I was just a LIR client (I didn't have my own registered LIR) : I asked the LIR for IPv4 assignment and got it. The cost for /21 IPv4 assignment was 300 USD/year. I got some /21 assignments from one LIR, some /21 from another LIRs and all were - ok: the price was good for me, I used the PA space from LIR allocation (as RIPE NCC recommended and didn't ask for PI IPv4). On June 2012, I received a letter from my LIR that says: the price for PA assignment /21 from January 2013 will 24000 USD/year. The another LIRs increased price for PA IPv4, but no so dramatically. I had to find a replacement for address space with a crazy price that affected the clients. So we can see the following: 1) Client asked the LIR for IPv4, and the LIR recommends the PA IPv4 assignment from their allocation; 2) The LIR asked the RIPE NCC for new allocation for clients and got more and more allocations; 3) The RIPE NCC didn't control the price for IPv4 for LIR clients; 3.1) I'm sure, the RIPE NCC shall not approved the PI IPv4 assignment for me with reason: I'm not sure that a RIPE NCC member (LIR) will not increase drastically the prices. 4) One day the LIR drastically increase the price for PA IPv4 for end users from 300 USD/year to 24000 USD/year and the multiple PA allocations are ready for sell... 5) The RIPE NCC policies didn't allow me to register the my own LIR and picked up the PA allocation from crazy LIR: pay or close your business, or get only /22. 6) The RIPE NCC is approved the "selling" the IPv4 from last /8 on 23/01/2013 - it is good for any existing and new LIR to get /22 that LIR really don't need and sell it for 10$/IP. 7.1) The RIPE NCC is approving selling the IPv4 from 185/8 for 2 years and there is no reaction from RIPE NCC community, only now. 7.2) So why do I need to pay 15$/IP or more to the LIR from my real history or to any existing LIR from 185/8? P.S. Maybe someone who speaks the most about saving 185/8 and has reserves of IPv4 is ready to transfer them to me for free, because they had previously received them from RIPE for free? I think I know in advance the answer to this rhetorical question. Best regards, Ivan Bulavkin

1 0

Hoarding /22 out of 185/8
by Fredy Kuenzler 06 May '15

06 May '15

All, as we are doing a daily diff of ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt we observed that something happens right now which was probably not forseen and not inteded by the policy. I thought to make the working group aware. Regards, Fredy / Init7 -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [allocdelta] New or removed allocations Datum: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:00:36 +0200 Von: allocdelta(a)init7.net * ru.ibulavkin25 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150224 185.89.104.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150217 2a03:7f60::/32 * ru.ibulavkin26 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150217 185.88.96.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20150216 2a03:7da0::/32 * ru.ibulavkin29 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150409 185.95.100.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin33 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150422 185.97.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.ibulavkin35 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20150414 185.95.228.0/22 ALLOCATED PA * ru.srv2013 Bulavkin Ivan Aleksandrovitch [ADD] 20140930 185.71.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141119 185.77.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141121 185.78.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141031 185.75.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.180.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141020 185.73.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130626 185.29.124.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.172.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20130527 2a00:90a0::/32 [ADD] 20141216 185.81.144.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141001 185.71.212.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141113 185.76.240.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140903 185.68.244.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141217 185.81.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140604 185.59.232.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.132.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140521 185.58.112.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.76.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141201 185.79.136.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140624 185.61.216.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20140829 185.68.184.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141216 185.24.108.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141128 185.79.48.0/22 ALLOCATED PA [ADD] 20141120 185.77.220.0/22 ALLOCATED PA

27 36

Agenda for Amsterdam, draft v2
by Gert Doering 02 May '15

02 May '15

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a new draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 13, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 13, 11:00 - 12:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection [15 min?] - longest-serving chair (Gert Doering) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO [15-20 min] - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE69 2014-04 Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 (consensus, policy) 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources (consensus, policy) 2014-07 Language Clarification 2014-08 Language Clarification 2014-10 Language Clarification 2014-11 Language Clarification (consensus, policy) 2014-09 Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space for IXPs" **no consensus, withdrawn** 2014-12 Allow IPv6 Transfers (consensus, policy) 2014-13 Allow AS Number Transfers (consensus, policy) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [30-40 min] (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals [10-30 min] 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders - no discussion, just status update from the WG chair) 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations (Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back H. Will It Be Routed? - On IPv6 Address Space Allocation & Assignment [30 m] Approaches in Very Large Organizations Presentation by Enno Rey, and Discussion F. Discussion of open policy proposals (continued) [45 min?] 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation (James Kennedy) 2015-03 Assignment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size (Mathew Newton, Alexander Brinkmann) G. New Ideas under Discussion [15 min] - Elvis Daniel Velea - change size of last /22 allocations - Erik Bais - unified transfer policy Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." Z. AOB

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 28 Apr '15

28 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

6 8

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by LIR (BIT I 5) 26 Apr '15

26 Apr '15

I also would support this proposal. Regards Carsten -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2015 09:48 An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Looks good to me. Support. Nick On 14/04/2015 14:52, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" > is now available for discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > >

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

1 0

RIPE Labs article on how Website Redesign affects Policy Proposal Discussions
by Marco Schmidt 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The latest update on RIPE Labs is an article highlighting the simplification of policy proposal discussions thanks to the re-design of www.ripe.net. - Find out how the diff tool allows easy comparison of RIPE documents. - Learn how we improved navigation and participation. - Discover more improved usability elements when you read the full article at: https://www.ripe.net/s/iO45 For comments or questions, you’re welcome to use the RIPE Labs article page or send me a direct email. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0