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

RIPE 89 Address Policy WG - Draft Minutes Published
by Leo Vegoda 18 Dec '24

18 Dec '24

Dear Address Policy WG, We’ve received the minutes of the RIPE 89 meeting and the RIPE NCC has published them for your review. https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/ap/minutes/ripe-89-address-poli… We'd like to thank Alun and Antony from the RIPE NCC for preparing the draft for us. Please review the minutes and provide feedback if you think there is something missing or incorrect. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda & Alex le Heux Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

Authorised ASN attribute
by Lu Heng 10 Dec '24

10 Dec '24

Hi During leasing of IPs, and varieties of routing database, often causing confusions among upstream and we have spend significant amount of time help for verification. why not we include an authorises ASN attribute in assignment to simplify the authorization? An idea for discussion -- -- Kind regards. Lu

3 2

New Address Policy WG Co-Chair Sought
by Leo Vegoda 26 Nov '24

26 Nov '24

Dear Address Policy WG, As we announced at RIPE 89, we want to recruit a third co-chair. We will ask the Working Group to finalise its selection at RIPE 90, in Lisbon. We will communicate a selection timeline early in 2025. If you are interested in serving as a co-chair of this Working Group, you are welcome to speak to Alex or me, to learn what we do off-list. Mirjam and Niall, as RIPE Chair and Vice Chair are also happy to answer any questions you have. And, you can also seek input from RIPE NCC staff and previous co-chairs. You can also read the Job Description here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692/ A RIPE Working Group Chair Training course is available at the RIPE NCC Academy: https://academy.ripe.net/enrol/index.php?id=16 Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the co-chairs

1 0

2024-01 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy)
by Angela Dall'Ara 21 Nov '24

21 Nov '24

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2024-01, "Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to define End Sites and requirements for “IPv6 PI Assignments” and “Assignments from IPv6 Allocations”, clarifies permitted use cases and introduces IPv6 PI issuance at the Nibble boundary and new principles for aggregation and registration. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2024-01 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. Taking in consideration the holiday period, the Address Policy WG Chairs decided to allow five weeks for this initial phase. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 September 2024. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

12 31

2024-01 End of Discussion Phase (Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy)
by Alex Le Heux 20 Nov '24

20 Nov '24

Dear Address Policy WG, As you’ve seen, Tobias is working on an update to 2024-01: Revised IPv6 PI Assignment Policy. He will take account of the feedback received. A new discussion phase will start when the new version of the proposal is published. The RIPE NCC will update the proposal page and announce the publication when the new draft is ready. You can find all current policy proposals at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/current-proposals/ You can read our Policy Development Process at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781/ Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Alex Le Heux Address Policy WG co-chairs

2 1

2024-02 End of Discussion Phase (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28)
by Alex Le Heux 18 Nov '24

18 Nov '24

Dear Address Policy WG, As you’ve seen, Rinse and Jordi are working on an update to 2024-02: IPv6 Initial Allocations /28. They will take account of the feedback received. The discussion touched on topics regarding balancing aggregation and conservation, preventing stockpiling, and reducing administrative overhead A new discussion phase will start when the new version of the proposal is published. The RIPE NCC will update the proposal page and announce the publication when the new draft is ready. You can find all current policy proposals at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/current-proposals/ You can read our Policy Development Process at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781/ Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Alex Le Heux Address Policy WG co-chairs

1 0

Proposal 2024-01: Your Input needed!
by Tobias Fiebig 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

Moin, TL;DR: If you: - Support the proposal; OR - Are ok with the proposal/see no issue in moving it forward; OR - Can live with the proposal if thereafter a thorough cleanup effort of the whole policy starts, please speak up now. ------------- The extended discussion phase of 2024-01 is drawing closer to its end. After the presentation at the last meeting there was a lot of positive feedback, and a couple of people promised to write on the mailinglist (which, contrary to offline comments, counts). The major comment during the session was Gert noting that the proposal uses a lot of text. My counter point was that the grown policy we currently have necessitates that amount of text to account for all the corner cases and (excuse my German) 'Sonderlocken' we created over the decades. My point on that is that fixing this needs a more comprehensive revision of the policy foundation, which will take us several years; My suggestion is: - Implement 2024-01 - Start working on the more fundamental clean-up thereafter, as this will take long In any case, I do need some feedback from you; Otherwise, this will not be able to move in any direction. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias(a)fiebig.nl

8 13

2024-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28)
by Rinse Kloek 13 Nov '24

13 Nov '24

Hi All, On November 12th, the policy proposal 2024-02 (IPv6 Initial Allocations /28) has concluded. Thank you for all the feedback shared on this mailing list and at RIPE89. Next time, we hope to join you in person. We are currently reviewing the feedback received here on the mailing list and during the Address Policy Working Group at RIPE89. Following this, we will assess if and how the policy proposal should be adjusted. kind regards, Jordi Palet and Rinse Kloek

1 0

2024-02 last inputs in the mic
by jordi.palet＠consulintel.es 30 Oct '24

30 Oct '24

Hi all, 1) Regarding aggregation benefit The actual way out for organizations that need more than /29 and the justification is not accepted by the NCC is to create multiple LIRs, so they received non-aggregated prefixes. We avoid that with the proposal. 2) Stockpiling is the argument against the proposal. That’s why we had the discussion in the list suggesting to limit it to a single “upgrade to /28” per organization (for example). Also in the slides, I indicated that this may be a problem to be resolved by an additional proposal. Do we want to ask for a justification of those multiples LIRs? (for example) I hope to correctly captured those last inputs, otherwise, please, let us know. In fact, the last comment, I didn’t got it. Not sure if it was just a comment or a question. If the author can clarify will be happy to respond. Tks! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

3 2

Arguments opposing a proposal
by Nick Hilliard 30 Oct '24

30 Oct '24

In relation to the discussion at the microphone in today's APWG session, a policy proposal is a working group proposal. If there are arguments against a proposal, there is an implicit requirement to acknowledge these arguments. It is not relevant that the authors don't like those arguments. There are a lot of reasons for this, including objectivity and consensus. But it is also important document the decision-making process so that we have a future record of how decision about policy decisions are made, and what was considered. If we don't have that written record, we will lose the institutional knowledge of why policies say what they say. Nick

2 1