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

2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal until 22 October 2012. Highlights of the changes: -additional wording on the second paragraph of section 5.5 You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 October 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Temporary Internet Assignments policy
by Nick Hilliard 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

There's a thread on nanog-l at the moment about temporary internet assignments: > http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-September/051655.html I had already booked a slot in the AP-WG under AOB to talk about this because the policy is broken and needs fixing. Specifically, the timescales specified in the policy allow the assignment to be made one week before use: the consistent feedback is that this isn't enough time for large conference organisers to get things organised in time. The problems we're trying to address are: - enough time for debogonisation - enough time for pre-configuring equipment prior to shipment (which can be weeks in advance) - not knowing well in advance what address ranges you're going to get causes massive headaches, which is exactly what you don't need coming up to a frenzied configuration - conference attendees often arrive several days earlier than the conference formally starts, and they expect teh interwebs to work There are a couple of options for dealing with this: 1. specify new time limits (e.g. receive one month in advance, hand back one week after) 2. don't specify time limits but allow the IPRAs to have discretion on what seems sensible to them 3. keep the current time limits but ask the RIPE NCC whether it would be possible to implement a booking system. I.e. your assignment would only be active during the requested time period, but you would know well in advance what the options were. If anyone has opinions on which of these they prefer (or any other suggestions on how to deal with the issue), can you either post here or let me know off-list and I'll summarise at RIPE65 in advance of posting a policy amendment for ripe-526 shortly after the meeting? Nick

10 12

RIPE 553 & last /8 <-> Anycast assignments
by Carsten Schiefner 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

All - as I have just discussed this privately with a colleague: is it the case that as a side effect of section 5.6 "Use of last /8 for PA Allocations" of RIPE 553: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553#-----use-of-last-8-for-pa-allocatio… there won't be any more Anycast assignments following section 6.9 "Anycasting TLD and Tier 0/1 ENUM Nameservers" of this policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553#-----anycastying-tld-and-tier-1-enu… either? As such 'Assignments for authoritative TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services are subject to the policies described in the RIPE Document entitled "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region"' as this section states. I tried various ways of interpretation, but failed to come to terms eventually. Any hints, anyone? Thanks and best, Carsten

2 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Erik Bais 17 Sep '12

17 Sep '12

Dear Emilio & Nick, Thanks for the update on the proposal. I would like to state that I'm not in favor of this policy change. Obviously it is very appealing to open up the last /8 also for end-user assignments, even with the additions of limiting only to a /24 max. But I'm afraid that there will be a run on the last possible addresses and that there won't be any IP space left for new LIR's if they require it. ( Do I even dare to state anything about routing table explosion because of it ? ) For me this is a no-go policy change. IPv4 is over in a couple weeks in the RIPE region. Let's move on. Regards, Erik Bais

23 49

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revert Run Out Fairly after IPv4 depletion
by Hank Nussbacher 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

> > Dear Colleagues > > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > > and Assignment Policy 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/2012-06 > >I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even >enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to >all valid rules of PDP? > >http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po… > >According to this graph we have one month to go. > >Cheers, Jan Zorz Reading over http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion 5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months." Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file): ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated -Hank

8 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by McTim 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do? Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their registry file? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

8 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion
by Hamed Shafaghi 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

Hi, Now I’m seeking for at least /14 IPv4 space for inter-RIR transfer, if anybody know company that have This size (Or not less than /15) please inform me, this is critical request. -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Hamed Shafaghi 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

It’s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP address for next three months but my company after giving all requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 subnet!!! On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hamed, > > Yes, it's a lottery! > > Sorry that you didn't win. > > I didn't either, tried to get a PI out. :) But didn't get it. > > Best, > Martin > > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 18:47 +0430, Hamed Shafaghi wrote: > > It’s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP > > address for next three months but my company after giving all > > requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 > > subnet!!! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 15:56 +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > > The delegated-ripencc-extended-latest shows which blocks > > were free at the start of the day, then it's just a matter of > > some whois queries to figure out the rest. > > > > > > Right now it seems 128.0.107.0-128.0.111.255 are still free, > > plus those five /24s out of 192/8 I listed earlier. And maybe > > those /25+es (didn't check as I'm on the road at the moment). > > So it's pretty much all gone now. > > > > > > Tore > > > > > > Right, as per the announcements [1][2] as well, we're > > officially in > > final /8 land now, and IPRAs ran the "available pool" down to > > the > > ground. > > > > So, somewhere between 35-60M EUR locked up for the RIPE NCC > > now, from > > one-shot-LIRs, with current policy. Does the RIPE NCC need all > > this > > money or will that complicate things, especially w.r.t IPv4 as > > an asset > > issues? Or does it matter what we do? > > > > IPv4 just became an asset in this land regardless. :-) > > > > Best, > > Martin > > > > [1] > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2012-September/000615.h… > > [2] > > > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-begins-to-allocate… > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > I Hamed Shafaghi I > > I Managing Director I > > > > I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I > > > -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Tore Anderson 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

The delegated-ripencc-extended-latest shows which blocks were free at the start of the day, then it's just a matter of some whois queries to figure out the rest. Right now it seems 128.0.107.0-128.0.111.255 are still free, plus those five /24s out of 192/8 I listed earlier. And maybe those /25+es (didn't check as I'm on the road at the moment). So it's pretty much all gone now. Tore Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com>: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> wrote: > The IPRAs are most definitively at work today. At the time of writing, > only the following prefixes are, as far as I can tell, still available: Are you trawling the RIPE db or how did you arrive at that conclusion? We (#networker) would really like to know. -- Richard

3 2