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

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
by Ciprian Nica 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > > > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong > but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. > > In your (utterly flawed) opinion. > > I respect everyone's opinion and especially yours. > I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of this list have > absolute confidence in the integrity of the WG’s co-chairs. If you think > you can do better, feel free to stand the next time the appointment process > runs. > > I never care about the majority and I don't think that should be a standard. Time has proven that sometimes majorities are wrong. > > As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. > > There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Gert (or > Sander) are “taking sides”. > Supporting an idea and ignoring someone based on personal feelings means taking sides. > > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be > judging others ? > > Here’s a simple rhetorical question for you. Do you think making > unjustified ad-hominem attacks and insults like the above will encourage > support for your position on this policy proposal? > > Your behaviour here is unacceptable and way, way, way out of line. > > With power comes responsibility. And yes, we should question our "leaders" all the time. This is not something wrong, it's helpful for keeping the balance. > > Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your > interests ? > > No. That’s *my* job. :-) > > Until you apologise and learn how to conduct yourself properly on this > list, Ciprian SHUT UP. Unsubscribe, shut up, go away... Next time you'll send me to a concentration camp ? No I WILL NOT SHUT UP ! I will always express my opinion even if I'm the only one in the world supporting it. A great romanian said that the best definition of democracy is "I will fight till my last drop of blood so you will have the right to disagree with me". I know many don't like it and prefer to solve matters by putting the fist into minority's mouth. Who'll be next in line to be "killed" tomorrow ? Ciprian

3 4

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies): The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense. I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly? Best Regards Niculae Plesa

4 3

niculae@plesa.ro
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

niculae(a)plesa.ro

1 0

APWG agenda for Madrid - first draft
by Gert Doering 17 Oct '16

17 Oct '16

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Madrid in the following time slots: Wednesday, Oct 26, 10:00 - 11:30 (+1 hour!!) Wednesday, Oct 26, 12:00 - 13:30 If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. So far, the agenda is fairly light - if you have something you want to address, or that bothers you, let us know and we make room for you :-) The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 10:00-11:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - 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 RIPE 72 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 50 min 2015-04 RIPE Resource Transfer Policies Erik Bais 2016-03 Locking Down the Final /8 Policy Remco van Mook G. consequences of the end of IPv4 15 min Erik Bais (presentation only, think about over coffee, discuss later) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back G. consequences of the end of IPv4 30 min Erik Bais (discussion with the group) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 45 min (+ discussion with the group) Y. Open Policy Hour 15 min The Open Policy Hour 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 -- 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 2

New on RIPE Labs: Supporting IPv6 Deployment Through Policy
by Marco Schmidt 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, It was about a year ago that the RIPE community reached consensus on a policy proposal that introduced additional criteria for initial IPv6 allocations. We thought it was time to look back the origins of this proposal and see how the change has worked out since: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/supporting-ipv6-deployment-thro… Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

(no subject)
by 8lb. 7zin 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

Monday, June 9, 2014 at 14:49:33 +0200, Joao Damas wrote: > At a recent meeting RIPE 68 there was a discussion about the issues > On the return of the recovered version for 16-bit ASNs by the NCC and RIPE > Possible modifications to the content of the qualities related guidance in > Data RIPE database objects, a guidance autnum politics features >. As is set things > > The consensus was noted during the meeting include: > > - The National Coordinating Committee RIPE not to remove all references to recovered ASNs for > Import and export lines, not Kkainat- SET. Directive > Policies owner of the object world and have nothing to do > Personalization data. > - NCC RIPE inform the maintainer of the object that contains > Outdated for this reference signal. The NCC also offer RIPE > Support for the breadwinner to delete the reference. > - NCC RIPE start reset referred to numbers once and > It is a reference gathering of 16-bit AS numbers have been exhausted. > > We would like to close the case, and be able to provide clear guidance > NCC RIPE so we would like to get confirmation of this result > Also from the mailing lists of the Working Group. This is not a matter of policy: > We have been dealing with the redistribution of ASNs for recovered with by the APWG, and > The current number of modifications to the database objects associated with the RIPE > Return to the rechargeable customization resources. We suggest 15 days > Comment period, ending June 24, 2014. I love that. Best Regards, Function

1 0

Idea for aggregating IP addresses
by Ping IP 25 Sep '16

25 Sep '16

Hello, One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP ranges for a greater block. For example: LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the Internet. According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible according the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this ability. I'm curious to what you think of this idea. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network

8 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses
by Ping IP 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

Hello Jörg, Although I used a /22 and /20 as an example. I deliberately mention IP addresses, since this idea can be used for IPv4 and IPv6. Perhaps its too little, too late for IPv4. But it helps one of the goals of RIPE. Best regards, Abdelouahed Ping IP network 2016-09-22 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jörg Kost <joerg.kost(a)premium-datacenter.de>: > Hi, > > I like the idealism of this idea, but it is too little, too late and much > too many work to save a few bytes on the ip4 routing table. This race is > lost, adding more memory to the board or block and remove certain routes > will be the solution. My focus shifted already to the future (?) > disaggregation of ip6, where we had hit the 32k lately. > > Jörg > > > On 22 Sep 2016, at 14:37, Ping IP wrote: > > Hello, >> >> One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to suggest >> the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of IP >> ranges for a greater block. >> >> For example: >> LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can exchange >> these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. >> >> This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP subnets >> to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on the >> Internet. >> >> According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible >> according >> the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User this >> ability. >> >> I'm curious to what you think of this idea. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Abdelouahed >> Ping IP network >> >

2 1

New on RIPE Labs: All Quiet in the IPv4 Internet?
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 Sep '16

21 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs by Philipp Richter: All Quiet in the IPv4 Internet? The number of new IPv4 allocations has stagnated, address markets have taken off, and address sharing mechanisms (for example, Carrier-Grade NAT) are on the rise as operators try to squeeze the most out of their IPv4 address space. But what is really happening in the IPv4 address space? Measuring address space activity at scale is difficult. There’s really no single vantage point that can capture all the activity. Read more on RIPE Labs (this article was originally published on the APNIC blog): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/philipp_richter/all-quiet-in-the-ipv4-internet Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 72 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 72 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-72 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0