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

New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Ingrid Wijte 21 Aug '18

21 Aug '18

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA on 20 August 2018: 207260-208283 208284-209307 209308-210331 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager and Policy Development RIPE NCC

1 0

[Deadline Extended] SenSys 2018 Poster/Demo
by shijiapan＠cmu.edu 18 Aug '18

18 Aug '18

1 0

[Deadline Extended] SenSys 2018 Workshop DATA -- Data: Acquisition To Analysis
by shijiapan＠cmu.edu 16 Aug '18

16 Aug '18

1 0

2018-01 Proposal Accepted (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Jul '18

23 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy". The goal of this proposal was to clarify the wording used in RIPE-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 The new RIPE Document is ripe-707 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707 We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2018-03 Last Call for Comments (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
by Erik Bais 23 Jul '18

23 Jul '18

Dear WG. While we are still getting used to switching hats/roles between Sander and myself, we are currently at the time of seeing the first official ML post in my new role as WG chair. With Sander stating his support on the 2018-03 policy and showing his ‘renewed’ community role again (and the support of : Mike, Piotr, Dominik and Nikolay), the review phase has come to an end. There were no objections or outstanding questions on the ML regarding the policy proposal and with that result we (The WG chairs) agree that we move the policy to Last Call. If there are specific questions that you might have regarding this policy proposal, please ask them on the ML. And if you (still) agree with the policy moving forward, please state your support here on our ML. Kind regards, Erik Bais APWG Chair

1 0

2018-01 Last Call for Comments (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 12 July 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01> Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 12 July 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Feedback needed for 2018-03 (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
by Andrea Cima 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

Dear All, Policy proposal 2018-03 aims at fixing outdated information in IPv4 Policy, like outdated references or values of inetnum objects in the RIPE Database. While I am aware this is not the most exciting of the current policy proposals, it is important to keep the content of the IPv4 policy up-to-date. The review phase for this proposed policy change will end this week, and in order to proceed with the PDP this proposal needs your input, whether you support or oppose the changes. You can find the full proposal here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 Thank you in advance for your support and best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC

6 7

2018-03 Review Phase (Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 21 Jun '18

21 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-03, "Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to fix outdated information in the RIPE Policy "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Adding a direct reference to the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry" The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 19 July 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Jun '18

12 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to clarify the wording used in ripe-699 regarding terms such as "organisation" and "LIR". The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies when the subsequent allocation policy applies - Fixing some typos The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 June 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 10

proposal to remove IPv6 PI
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 May '18

21 May '18

Hi all, For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf I believe we have several problems that my proposal is trying to fix. 1) See my previous email on the clarification of IPv6 PI sub-assignments. Is not just a matter of IPv6, but also IPv4. This is an alternative solution (at least of the IPv6 part - we could do the same for IPv4 of course and also remove IPv4 PI). 2) It was clear in the meeting, as we *all* know, that many folks in the community (and not only in this region) are abusing the policy and they actually use end-user space (PI policies) to *assign* (call it sub-assign if you prefer it), to third parties. 3) It may be the case that this happens because the fee structure. An LIR, currently, pays 1.400 Euros per year (plus one-time setup-fee of 2.000 Euros). And end-user just pay 50 Euros per resource assignment. So, it makes sense to just pay for 50 Euros, and then you may be providing services using NAT+CGN (in the case of IPv4) or a single /64 to each subscriber in the case of IPv6. It is broken, of course, but people do that. 4) The fee scheme is somehow responsible of that as well, as there is in my opinion, unfairness. A big ISP having an IPv6 /20, or /24 or /29 or /32 is paying always the same. This is the only region that have a "flat" rate. 5) We could fix the point above, auditing every end-user. But we could also fix it in a better way by: a) A policy change in the line the one I've proposed (see the slides and the links for a diff) b) Having a single LIR contract, instead of LIR and end-user c) This may be (as an option), also become a way to make a price scheme which is proportional to the amount of resources allocated. Note that we don't need to change the fee scheme, but it is an opportunity for taking a look into that. It may be perfectly possible to keep the cost of end-users as 50 Euros (for a single /48, for example), but having a single contract. I know perfectly that fees are not "policy", however only if we address that we can do correctly the policy. A demonstration of that: When I proposed the IPv6 PI and it reached consensus, it was needed to create the "end-user" contract and the corresponding fee, so is something that we have done before. I know that the proposed text may be very imperfect, for example the usage of "ISPs", but this is not the key now, there are for sure several alternatives to that. For example, we could just differentiate both cases with "LIR that do subsequent distributions initially qualify for /32 up to /29 etc. LIRs that do not do subsequent distributions initially qualify for a /48 for each end-site". So please, don't consider specific text at this point of the discussion. And last, but not least, repeating myself, we could do this just for IPv6, or also work in parallel in a policy proposal for IPv4 PI removal as well. This will be probably the best choice, so we can let the NCC to have a simplified policy, a single contract and consequently less overhead: Simplification for everyone. Thoughts? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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.

16 50