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

2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
by Emilio Madaio 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted
by Gert Doering 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:52:53AM +0100, Iñigo Ortiz de Urbina wrote: > > My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/weekly/ - and they are > > > Broken link? :-) Indeed, sorry: My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/ there was a /RIPE/ missing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted
by Sander Steffann 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Dear working group, After we (the chairs of this working group) have declared consensus on policy proposal 2011-02 the policy development process has been evaluated by the collective of all the RIPE working group chairs. After a very thorough analysis (this has not been an easy process!) they reached the conclusion that the declaration of consensus is valid. We now ask the RIPE NCC to implement policy proposal 2011-02. As promised we also give ourselves the task to keep a very close eye on the effects of this policy change. We will report on these effects at least at every RIPE meeting. Thank you, The APWG Chairs

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Nick Hilliard 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

I have a direct interest in this proposal. Having got that out of the way, I generally agree with principal of the proposal. If a bunch of organisations want to bunch together and set up some common infrastructure for interconnection, this is probably more important than giving public ip to a tiny number of dial up end users. One suggestion: > Assignments will only be made to IXPs who have already applied for, or > received an IPv6 assignment for their peering LAN. This is pointless. You can't make people use IPv6 and politically stuffing it down the throat of an IXP won't do anything other than cause facepalming. It certainly won't cause ipv6 to be more rapidly deployed. Either IPv6 will happen because of necessity or it won't. If IXP participants want ipv6, then they will push the exchange operator to implement it, and it will be done. But mandating an ipv6 assignment request in an ipv4 assignment policy is, well, silly. Also, a nit: > This space will be used to run an Internet Exchange Point peering LAN, > other uses are forbidden. The comma should be replaced with either a semicolon or else a full stop. Nick

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Henk Uijterwaal 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

On 17/01/2012 14:25, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the 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 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the > proposal. > > Changes in version 2.0 include: > > - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 > - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the > use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. Detail: section 5 should (probably) say "clause 1 or clause 2". More general: it is entirely possible that the final /8 (minus the /16 for IXPs) will be distributed before the /16 for IXPs has run out. What will happen to the IXP-/16 then? Considering that any new organization will only get IPv6, a new IXP in that region will only need v6 connectivity anyway, so why have a seperate block then? Henk > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 February 2012. > > Regards, > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

1 0

2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 17 Jan '12

17 Jan '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of the 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 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. Changes in version 2.0 include: - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 February 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Nick Hilliard 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote: > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded two issues here: 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006… specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments? Nick

7 11

status of 2011-02
by Gert Doering 05 Jan '12

05 Jan '12

Dear AP WG, 2011-02 has been a difficult one, and you have noticed the lack of visible progress. So let us explain, and propose a way forward. The RIPE policy development process calls for "consensus" to make policy from policy proposals. Sometimes it's very clear if consensus has been reached, and sometimes it's very clear that consensus has NOT been reached. When looking for consensus, we have to see if there are objections to the proposal, and if those objections are justified - see the beginning of section 2 of RIPE-500: 'In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments'. This is explicitly repeated in section 2.4. In 2011-02, we have the case of "rough consensus with objections": We have a number of people who spoke up in favour of the proposal, both during the discussion/review phases and during Last Call. A few persons had serious doubts about routing table growth and about PI in general, but still spoke in favour of the proposal, or abstained. One person opposes the proposal, based on worries about highly accelerated and thus unsustainable routing table growth as a consequence of the proposal. Given that some of the other RIRs already have less restrictive IPv6 PI policies, the available numbers on their PI assignments and the routes seen in the global IPv6 BGP table do not back this assumption. Neither does the data from the global IPv4 BGP table, where the RIPE region has always had a very relaxed PI policy. So the AP WG chairs have decided (after long discussion) that we do have rough consensus on this policy proposal, and the remaining objections will be ignored. Sander Steffann announced this at the APWG meeting - and one member of the WG spoke up at the microphone and disagreed with our conclusion. So we spent some more weeks discussing and thinking about this, and this is what we do now: - the WG chairs declare consensus - but the *working group* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the proposal, or not. If you, the WG, decides that we do not have consensus, the policy proposal goes back to "discussion phase", and the proposer will need to work with those people that spoke up against the proposal to integrate their ideas, and come up with a new version of the policy proposal that might then reach consensus. sincerly yours, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs -- 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

21 52

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Sascha Lenz 03 Jan '12

03 Jan '12

Hi, > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 January 2012. > looks basically fine to me - the new version doesn't change anything i liked about the initial one. Although maybe.. "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary." ... is a little vague for people who haven't followed the discussion here ("why no /29 per default in the first place?"). I don't see a general problem with that wording and have no better idea, just saying that some might be confused about what's the point here when reading the updated policy later. Or maybe it's just me _because_ i followed the discussion :-) -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 02 Jan '12

02 Jan '12

On 1/2/12 3:10 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded Hi, Emilio, thnx for your efforts and all the help with this proposal. Just to add my .2 cents - we considered Remco's and James's suggestions, first one to give out /32 by default and give out more only if LIR asks for it (Remco) and we re-added section 5.7 with clarification, that every holder of legacy /32 can ask for extension of allocation. This is what we heard from you - community - in last few months of discussion. Hope that we made this proposal more acceptable for everyone. Thnx for all your input, Jan Zorz

1 0