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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Erik Bais 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support +1

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Tore Anderson 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Tore

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Sandra Brown

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Jan Ingvoldstad 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, > "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > I support this proposal. -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by James Blessing 11 Apr '13

11 Apr '13

On 10 April 2013 14:30, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > support -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact AnalysisPublished (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

I agree with this proposal. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood(a)imerja.com NIC: JS7259-RIPE -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Hallmark House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO9001 / ISO27001 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

1 0

2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Apr '13

10 Apr '13

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 May 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics?
by Tore Anderson 02 Apr '13

02 Apr '13

Quick question for the WG: What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved" transfers? a) Keep it, or b) Remove it? (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.) Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-… (bottom of page) I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused transfers. Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the intention of the statistics is to record «transfers [that] were denied on the basis of needs evaluation»: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de-aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However, since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into version 2 of 2013-03. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 27 Mar '13

27 Mar '13

> You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 16 April 2013. Support. This goal of 2012-03 was to align the justification period with the other RIR's who allow inter-RIR transfers. Tore's proposal 2013-03 will remove justification altogether, which is what all the RIR's need to do. The reason I went with a 24 month justification period in 2012-03 was because that was the period APNIC and ARIN use. I was hopeful that this would align the RIPE such that when transfers to and from those RIR's were considered, they would be allowed, because the RIPE would have a "like" policy. Tore's policy may have the impact of bringing ALL the RIR's into the current market reality: that when an entity is paying for IP's, that is needs justification enough. There is no hoarding in an unencumbered market. RIPE is demonstrating true world leadership here. Sandra Brown

12 41

minimum allocation size in case of transform addresses
by Andrzej Dopierała 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

Hi! I found today out, that there is planed possibility to convert PI assignments to PA allocation. But - i'ts planed only for /22 and bigger assignments, due to minimum allocation size, and doesn't apply for example /23 or /22 assignemnts. I think it's a bit pointless. AFAIK sense of minimum allocation is suppression of unnecessary fragmentation. But - in this case - this pool is already in use, and is already visible in bgp table. Allowing or disallowing conversion doesn't have any relation with growing address space. What's more - allowing conversion of any assignment can save some of address space. Most of PI assignemts (known to me) is partialy unused. After years from assignemnts part of the plans has been withdrawn (but another parts are citical - dns servers etc - so whole assignemnt can't be returned). Allowing conversion would allow use it back, for example for customers... (sorry for my english - i hope that sense is understandable) -- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

3 2