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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by boggits 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

On 2 April 2012 14:39, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ 1. Document does not make it clear about what happens if an LIR changes its policy in regards to reciprocity (i.e. does the policy stop at that instant, are existing transfers completed, are any transfers reversed, etc) 2. IP addresses can't be 'sold' (if they can I'd like to buy some) surely this should be transfered. Why a 15 month window? 3. There appears to be no clear definition of what an acceptable reverse policy should be 4. The policy doesn't make clear who the end point of the transaction are, two LIRs, two endusers (one of each) I'll read it again and I'm sure there will be more questions J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Andrea Cima 22 Mar '12

22 Mar '12

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA in March 2012. 59392-60415 60416-61439 198656-199679 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-04 - proposal ended the Review phase
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Dear AP WG... While the chairs are evaluating the recent discussion as per PDP, for clarification, the remarks you made were identified and taken into consideration under other circumstances out of the scope of 2011-04. In the last ml posts some remarks on some side issues came up. I hope that we clearly explained that those issues were out of the scope of the current proposal and also kindly offer to take on them in another settings - and as I see in draft APWG meeting agenda I was somehow "volunteered" to start with some live discussion in Ljubljana around possibility of reviewing the additional IPv6 allocation policy. Please, have in mind, that that does not mean, that I'll necessarily review the policy - that means that at that slot on stage I'll try to ask some questions and we need a clear response or statement from community if there is a need to review that policy - and if yes, to form a group of interested people to do the work. We can also start this discussion before the meeting in Ljubljana in order to have some initial ideas where to go and what is the current "heat" in the group. Cheers from more and more "hot and springy" Slovenia, Jan Zorz

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: New Draft Document for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". A draft of the policy document is now online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… It was decided in the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE 63 that, in light of current policy discussions and proposed changes to the IPv6 policy framework, the RIPE NCC will put its review of the IPv6 policy documents (ripe-512, ripe-451, ripe-233) on hold. We encourage you to read the edited draft of ripe-302 and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> by 17 April 2012. Kind Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

APWG meeting at RIPE 64 - draft agenda 1
by Gert Doering 16 Mar '12

16 Mar '12

Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Ljubljana in the following two time slots: Wednesday, Apr 18, 09:00 - 10:30 Thursday, Apr 19, 09:00 - 10:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio - 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 RIPE63 [list of things that the WG chairs collective agrees on] - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Alex le Heux E. What Is Consensus? Lessons learned from past policy proposals (APWG chairs) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2011-04 extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 initial allocations 2011-05 safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K. IPv4 maintenance policy - Rob Blokzijl L. On IPv6 PI/PA Unification - update, discussion (APWG chairs) M. Discussion of open policy proposals, part II (if needed) N. Revisit IPv6 "additional allocation" policy (people on the list expressed unhappiness with the current policy, so please speak up! - Discussion led by Jan Zorz) 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

2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 06 Mar '12

06 Mar '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today. Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2 As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process. The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 3 April 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Gleb Katenin 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

Hi, Just wanted to say a few words in support of the proposal 2011-04. For companies like ours it makes perfect sense due to the fact that they often have multiple separate networks run by different people (user-facing, management, corporate and so on). ARIN has a policy to meet requirements of multiple discrete networks (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six_11) while RIPE has no provision for that. In fact, RIPE policy proposal 2011-04 was already offered to us as a solution for problem Google Corp network is currently facing. We have aggressive plans to roll out IPv6 in EMEA offices but our allocation request was turned down (see email below) due to the fact that initial /32 has been already allocated to us. In reality, however, it was allocated to another entity withing company which is not willing to share. We as an organization currently see the policy proposal 2011-04 as a way out and would very much like to support it. Please consider this as a "yes" vote. Thank you! Gleb > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM, RIPE NCC Staff <lir-help(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Gleb, >> >> Thank you for your email. >> >> The policies in the RIPE region differ from the APNIC ones, so what you >> might >> have received there is not per se what you will receive here. :) >> >> The IPv6 policy procures one initial IPv6 allocation per LIR to deploy >> IPv6 >> on the network. >> >> An LIR can request a subsequent allocation when they have reached an >> HD-ratio >> value of 0.94. >> >> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-523#subsequent_allocation> >> >> There is no support in the policy at the moment for multiple /32 >> allocations >> for administrative ease. >> >> The options you do have are as follows: >> >> -support the current policy proposal 2011-04 and then get a larger >> allocation >> for the ie.google registry when the proposal is implemented: >> >> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04> >> >> -split the current /32 allocation into two different prefixes. This is >> allowed >> by the current policy, after the community decided to remove the >> limitations >> that the allocation had to be announced as one single prefix. >> >> You can add several maintainers to the current /32 allocation using the >> LIR portal Object Editor: >> >> <https://lirportal.ripe.net/home/> >> >> Please let me know if you have any further questions about the IPv6 policy >> and what your current options are. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gerardo Viviers >> RIPE NCC >> Registration Services >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:47:19 +0100, Gleb Katenin wrote: >> > Dear Henriette, >> > >> > Thanks for your detailed answer! The allocation you've mentioned >> > belongs to Google user-facing production network (AS15169) and is >> > protected by MNT-GOOG-PROD object. What we are currently requesting >> > is /32 allocation for internal corporate network (AS41264), our >> > objects are protected by MNT-GOOG-CORP. For instance, by APNIC we have >> > following allocations: >> > >> > - 2404:6800::/32 for Prod network >> > - 2401:fa00::/32 for Corp network >> > >> > Google Prod and Corp networks are logically and physically >> > separate and maintained by different people. For this reason we keep >> > network allocations separate as well. Please kindly advise how >> > to proceed with our RIPE request further. >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Gleb Katenin > Network Engineer > Tel. +41 44 668-1072 > > Google Switzerland GmbH > Brandschenkestrasse 110, 8002 Zurich > Registration No. CH-020.4.028.116-1 >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Draft Document Published (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Michael Adams 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hi all. Am 14.02.2012 15:42, schrieb Emilio Madaio: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 13 March 2012. I'm 100% happy with the draft but one thing circles in my mind. 5.1.2 says it's possible to qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 based on the number of existing users. Shouldn't this be possible for existing IPv6 space holders too? 5.7 doesn't mention this. Just a thought... Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Geschäftsführer Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 Köln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht Köln

6 18

(draft) Minutes from RIPE 63
by Gert Doering 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hi APWG, the draft minutes from RIPE 63 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-63 please let us know if something is missing or not correct. The minutes have been reviewed, but they are quite long and detailed, and mistakes happen. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0