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

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27
by Lu 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. 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. > On 2014年7月29日, at 下午6:00, 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. Re: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A(a)bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > >

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Hi at all I also support the policy change. Best regards, Olaf (OLAF4-RIPE)

1 0

2014-01 Proposal Accepted (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Marco Schmidt 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-621 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-621 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We estimate it may take a few weeks to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers
by Max Tulyev 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello All, don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly touches IP/ASN management, of course. Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why?

5 6

Consensus after Last Call on 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
by Sander Steffann 28 Jul '14

28 Jul '14

Hello working group, As per the RIPE PDP in ripe-614 the decision whether a proposal has reached consensus is now done by the working group chairs of the WG that discussed the proposal. We will give an overview of what occurred in the working group and explain how we came to our conclusions based on that. When this proposal went from Review phase to Last Call this was based on this analysis by the working group chairs: > During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. > > After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: > - Tore Anderson > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Piotr Strzyzewski > - Sascha Luck > - Jens Ott > - George Giannousopoulos > - Andreas Larsen > - Sebastian Wiesinger > > The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. During Last Call four more people stated their clear support (on 16 and 17 June) - Elvis Daniel Velea (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Erik Bais (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Janos Zsako (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Daniel Stolpe There were no other postings during Last Calls. Based on the comments received in review and last call phase, we have decided that consensus has indeed been reached. We therefore ask the RIPE NCC to implement this policy. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs(a)ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Your working group chairs, Gert Döring and Sander Steffann

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Job Snijders 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. Kind regards, Job

5 4

About the /22 allocation limitation
by Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Hi Everyone, First of all, my name is Daniel and Im the Network Administrator of the AS199952 Im new to the address policy wg and Im sure you can answer the question. The /22 allocation restriction to new LIRs are only for new LIRs or for all LIRs? We only got a /22 as new LIR, and we cant ask for more IPs, proving we need it or not. I know, this is a recursive discussion, but I wonder if old LIRs can ask for more IPs or they are restricted as new LIRs are. For all people who are going to say "Move to IPv6" I already did it. About 75% of my network is IPv6 ready. 100% of our backbone network is IPv6 but, as all of you can see, only 18% of the World ASes are IPv6 ( http://v6asns.ripe.net/v/6?s=_ALL;s=_RIR_APNIC;s=_RIR_AfriNIC;s=_RIR_ARIN;s… ) and IPv6 wont work for anybody if the rest of the world isnt IPv6 ready. To be honest, I think IPv6 will not be ready before lot of us (new lirs)run out of IPv4 address while old LIRs have thousands and thousands of unused IP address and they sell them for really expensive price. I saw one in the listing service asking for at least 2 digits per IP... 2 digits! for something they got for free in the past. Again, I know, IPv4 is exhausted but this cant be used for making lot and fast money from new LIRs that only have /22 allocation and need more. I wonder if a change proposal of the policy to allow to ask for more IPs, of course proving the use of the ones you already have, and only giving /24's would be accepted by the community or I will get flamed for making the proposal. Please, feel free to discuss about this if you are going to say something usefull. PS: Sorry about my english, if I didnt explained well about something, just tell me. I will not feel offended. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefonía Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante).

25 112

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Tore Anderson 13 Jul '14

13 Jul '14

* Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 «RIPE NCC Registration Services expects that this proposal will have a very positive effect on the accuracy and consistency of the RIPE Registry as the resource holders will have more incentive to properly request and document transfers of PI assignments.» And that's why we have a registry in the first place, is it not? +1 Tore

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Alex Le Heux 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Hi Marco, The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite guidance from the RIPE communityŠ What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? There¹s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ³guided", from informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the articles of association, and many steps in between ;) Regards, Alex Le Heux On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >"Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been >published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >has also been published. > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. > > >Regards, > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Jul '14

11 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0