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

Just FYI
by Saeed Khademi 22 Nov '14

22 Nov '14

Dear members, During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to our instructor ) there are some organizations having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request will not be processed by hostmaster. and here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assign… it is clearly mentioned that “Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned” Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with ASN, isn’t it a wrong doing? Kind Regards, Saeed.

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-07 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment > Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. the changes make sense as far as I can see, supported from me. -- 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] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available > for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. late but support from me -- 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] 2014-10 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region”)
by Roger Jørgensen 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Addresses for Internet > Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2014. Unsure about those changes, can this cause issues similar to what Nick pointed out regard IX space? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-October/00925… -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

1 0

2014-04 timer update?
by Aleksi Suhonen 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Hello all, We recently modified the 2014-04 proposal to drop any and all IPv6 requirements from the last IPv4 assignment policy. Please indicate your support or lack there of for 2014-04 now. Also, could the chairs publicly declare which timer the 2014-04 proposal is on now and how much time is left before it advances? Yours sincerely, -- Aleksi Suhonen / You say "hot potato", I say "closest-exit."

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17
by Lu Heng 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Hi I think some people are off topic here, all I said was we should not treat v4 and v6 differently, that's it. If there are people like to treat two protocols differently, you are free to express your view. But anyway, this is really not a topic for this mailing list anyway, should we stop here?(if anyone interested we can start at IPv6 wg there) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > 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://www.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: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Hans Petter Holen) > 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Benedikt Stockebrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100 > From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <54648513.1020201(a)oslo.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > > address policy. > According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the > IPv6 wg. > > See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > > -- > Hans Petter Holen > Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 > From: Benedikt Stockebrand <bs(a)stepladder-it.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address > policy mailing lists] > To: Jen Linkova <furry13(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net IPv6" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf(a)stepladder-it.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi folks, > > Jen Linkova <furry13(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> > wrote: > > [...] > >>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > >> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > > [...] > > There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to > > address policy. > > I fully agree with Jen here. > > If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and > video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I > don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. > > @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this > point? > > > Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a > > mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. > > [...] > > I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still > try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at > hand. > > In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list > obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a > decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. > > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something > similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at > the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4. > > > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, > > Thank you, Jen! > > As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't > generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are > others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the > address policy list. > > > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > > list untouched. > > So do I. > > \begin{wg-chair-mode} > To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step > approach: > > - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt > accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger > with the address policy WG list. > > - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the > address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) > discussions moving there. > > I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as > far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the > IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement > and assume the question settled. > \end{wg-chair-mode} > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > > -- > Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting > Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ > > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects > > BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17 > ************************************************* > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14
by Lu 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

Hi Thanks guys for joining my idea, the reason why I asked in the first place is why don't we have a equal IPv4 working group then, if address technical issue alone worth for a wg, then for sure we are facing more issue with v4 than v6( in which practically still quite low usage for today's internet). And, what IPv6 wg has to do IPv6 transfer policy--it is not technical thing I believe. That said, I don't want to kill IPv6 wg, but just hoping v6 will have the normal treatment just like what we do with v4. Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > On 2014年11月12日, at 上午11:00, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > 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://www.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. 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy > (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) > 2. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Aleksi Suhonen) > 3. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) > 4. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (lir(a)elisa.fi) > 5. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > 6. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 > From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net> > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 > address policy > To: Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680(a)webmail.messagingengine.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote: >> >> Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? >> >> That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and >> not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. > > My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It > lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago > (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else > IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play > administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - > which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering > live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like > in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when > more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). > > Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF > that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. > Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). > Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier > to read and understand. > > Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much > relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases > of LIR consolidation. > Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably > go live before we sort out this issue). > >> No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case >> in order to keep this discussion clean. > > Done :) > > -- > Radu > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200 > From: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203(a)ssd.axu.tm> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hello, > >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this > proposal. > > -- > +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ > Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy > > You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100 > From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus <wilhelm(a)boeddinghaus.de> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503(a)boeddinghaus.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >>> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. >> > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" > would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" > WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is > about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, > just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have > a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is > still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with > IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be > addressed in a "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm >

4 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by lir＠elisa.fi 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

> > From: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm > Boeddinghaus > Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26 > To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing > lists] > > > > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: > > Hello, > > On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: > > Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we > need > two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as > normal > IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only > about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In > essence, I support this proposal. > > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would > be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals > with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is about > contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just > have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look > into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot > of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning > from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a > "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please > let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need > that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as > we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm > > > Hi all, I fully agree with Wilhelm. Rgds, Ray

1 0

FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Andy Davidson 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > [... Allow AS Number Transfers ...] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Support the end result but don't support text as it stands. - Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are available from the RIPE NCC. - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with the NCC. -a

5 7