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

Clarification of Address Policy wording, Take 3...
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 22 Apr '19

22 Apr '19

Colleagues We really need some help from you guys who understand, and possibly wrote, (parts of) the IPv4 address policy. The most confusing part is this: 6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users. Perhaps to some of you the intent of this is clear. But when I read these words I see ambiguity. Does the policy only require (tech/admin/abuse) contacts, or does it require publishing some details about who is operating the network? Help desks can be outsourced. So tech/admin/abuse contacts may not directly relate to the 'End User'. The policy appears to ask for contact details of the 'End User'. Also the second sentence is referring to the 'End User' as an individual or an organisation. Substitute that back into the first sentence and this policy is asking for 'contact details of the individual or organisation'. This is not the same as the tech/admin/abuse contacts. So what does anyone else understand from this wording? Or maybe the question should now be 'what details need to be published in the RIPE Database about these End Users, for what purpose and who needs it?'. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

3 3

2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by Marco Schmidt 13 Apr '19

13 Apr '19

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to make it clear in the IPv4 Policy that the status "ASSIGNED PA" can also be used for assignments to an LIR's infrastructure. The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01/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 9 April 2019. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

14 13

Clarification of policy requirements for contact information
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 12 Apr '19

12 Apr '19

Colleagues, Elvis, James and myself have started talking about personal data in the RIPE Database. I said we would bring sub issues to the community when we need direction or clarification. We looked at three policy documents maintained by AP-WG and have a few questions. Before we look at WHERE and HOW the data is stored, we would like to get community feedback on exactly WHAT contact details should be published as per current policies? Below are the quotes and links to the 3 policy documents we looked at. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG In the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" (ripe-708) [1] first mention about contact data is 4.0: "4.0 Registration Requirements All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support network operations. Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid. Registration of objects in the database is the final step in making an allocation or assignment. Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." and then in 6.2: "6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure. These addresses do not have to be registered with the End User's contact details but can be registered as part of the service provider's internal infrastructure. When an End User has a network using public address space this must be registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users. [...]" In the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" (ripe-707) [2] the requirement is even more vague in 3.3: "3.3. Registration Internet address space must be registered in a registry database accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to End Users. The goal of registration should be applied within the context of reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws." The "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" [3] does not mention anything about contact data requirements. [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-708[2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707[3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679

5 6

RIPE 77 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 21 Mar '19

21 Mar '19

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 77 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-77-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Same here, sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, a bit overloaded with daily work, but just read all the thread, and I'm supporting it. Further I can add some data. I've participated in APNIC 47, and prop-127, which is mention in this proposal, reached consensus. I've also discussed the same topic in the LACNIC mailing list, and I'm considering a similar proposal there. To be clear, I'm talking about the same as APNIC prop-127, which is moving the maximum allocation from /22 to /23. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.

1 0

2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Mar '19

16 Mar '19

Sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, but just read all the thread and the impact analysis, and I'm supporting as well. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.

1 0

PA – life after death
by Maxim A Piskunov 13 Mar '19

13 Mar '19

Hi Guys! As I understand "NetUP Ltd." will loose their PA-addresses if LIR status will not recovered and customers will should renumbering their networks. I have one simple question: why not specified procedure of keeping originally allocated addresses for case when LIR-status under cancellation and LIR can't transfer PA to another LIR. Or I miss something and chance to keep addresses is exists?

15 35

2018-02 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Mar '19

12 Mar '19

Dear colleagues, The policy proposal 2018-02, "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" has been withdrawn. This proposal aimed to clarify the definition of "Assign" in the IPv6 Policy (section 2.6). The proposal is archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer decided it was best to find agreement on a problem statement before developing new policy text. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Personal data in the RIPE Database
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Colleagues I have just sent a message to the Database Working Group about personal data in the RIPE Database and the next step. As this impacts slightly on address policy, which explicitly refers to contact data, and it may involve member services to manage any cleanup of data, I would appreciate input from the members of these two working groups. Perhaps you can check the message on the DB-WG list and respond with your thoughts on that list. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG

1 0

IPv6 PI justification requirements
by Cynthia Revström 27 Feb '19

27 Feb '19

Hello ap-wg, I am in the process of requesting 3x /48 of IPv6 PI for a customer, and what confuses me is that the NCC requires way more justification for 3x /48 of PI than for 2x /29 of PA. I do think that saying something like net1 will be used in the Netherlands, net2 in London, and net3 in New York should be enough. I mean after all, any LIR can get 512K /48s and unlike ASNs, PI space does have a small fee attached with it. I can't think of a good reason why this is the case. Once again to make it clear, if you are a member it is easier to get 1 million /48s than it is for a non member to get 3 /48s. - Cynthia

9 14