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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
by Petr Umelov 25 Apr '15

25 Apr '15

Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov

1 0

RIPE Labs article on how Website Redesign affects Policy Proposal Discussions
by Marco Schmidt 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The latest update on RIPE Labs is an article highlighting the simplification of policy proposal discussions thanks to the re-design of www.ripe.net. - Find out how the diff tool allows easy comparison of RIPE documents. - Learn how we improved navigation and participation. - Discover more improved usability elements when you read the full article at: https://www.ripe.net/s/iO45 For comments or questions, you’re welcome to use the RIPE Labs article page or send me a direct email. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE70 meeting agenda, draft 1
by Gert Doering 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

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 Amsterdam in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 13, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 13, 11:00 - 12:30 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, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection Process [15 min?] - presenting the current draft document - discussion C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO [15-20 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 RIPE69 2014-04 Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 (consensus, policy) 2014-05 Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources (consensus, policy) 2014-07 Language Clarification 2014-08 Language Clarification 2014-10 Language Clarification 2014-11 Language Clarification (consensus, policy) 2014-09 Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space for IXPs" **no consensus, withdrawn** 2014-12 Allow IPv6 Transfers (consensus, policy) 2014-13 Allow AS Number Transfers (consensus, policy) - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (NCC RS) [10-15 min] (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2014-03 Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number .. (Job Snijders) 2015-01 Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations (Elvis Velea) [some bits might get moved to "after coffee break" if we run out of time] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back F. Discussion of open policy proposals [60 min?] 2015-02 Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation (James Kennedy) N.N. "On IPv6 Allocation Criteria" (no formal proposal yet) G. New Ideas under Discussion - Elvis Daniel Velea - change size of last /22 allocations 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 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 2

2015-01 Impact Analysis will be produced (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has ended. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the document shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 3

2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by Marco Schmidt 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05 The new RIPE Document is ripe-644 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-644 The proposal also amended the policies described in the RIPE Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". The new RIPE Document is ripe-643 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-643 We have already begun the implementation and will start with our procedures, including the necessary coordination with the other RIRs. The technical implementation will start in around one month's time, as it needs to link with the ongoing implementation of the recently accepted IPv6 and ASN transfer policies. We estimate that it will take about four months to fully implement this proposal. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… We will send another announcement when the implementation is finished and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2014-05, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources", have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 2.0 include: - Introduction of needs justification for transfers from RIR regions that require need-based policies - Explicit statement about when RIPE policies apply during a transfer - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05 The draft documents are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 February 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

13 15

Working group chair rotation 1
by Sander Steffann 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Hello working group, As we now have a working group chair rotation/selection process in place it is time to start that process for the first time! After long deliberation (a.k.a. a random number generator) we have decided that Gert is going to be the first chair to step down. He will do so at the upcoming RIPE meeting (RIPE 70 in Amsterdam). He has also volunteered again and is therefore our first candidate. If anybody else wants to volunteer then please make yourself known on this mailing list before the start of RIPE 70. Cheers, Sander & Gert

3 3

Working group chair selection process: consensus
by Sander Steffann 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Hi working group, The last call for the working group chair selection process has ended and no further comments were received. Therefore the working group chairs hereby declare consensus for the process. Cheers, Sander & Gert

1 0

2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Riccardo Gori 03 Apr '15

03 Apr '15

Hi everybody, This policy proposal gets +1 support from me, a rookie. My little experience is so recent but so clear: RIPE wants to burn out this resources or at least make this resources available does not matter to who. Maybe someone thinks this way will be the IPv6 time or maybe someone owns a lot of resources and wants to make much more money from them for a while... don't know. Too young in this to understand, anyway this looks to me slightly far from the spirit of the last /8 policy I read. I think the support of the policy would be correct but it can certainly higher the market price and if there is no way to stop big player this could be converted in a mess. Thee proposal is a good start but I think the community needs something better. I would go this way: - approve 24 months holding time - forbid companies (not LIRs) holding more than one /22 if they already hold resources before allocated before /8 policy Older resource holder allocated before /8 policy had the chance in the past to request resources for sligtly lower costs. They are in the market and they have experience in routing and managin IPs, they should (must) start IPv6 deployment as an example for others. kind regards Riccardo Gori

1 0