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

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Randy Bush 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

>> i have given multi-year loans, admittedly not transfers as they did not >> exist at the time, a number of times. i have space out on loan now. > > What records did you use for that? I mean "Assigned PA", > "Sub-allocated PA", etc? And how many IPs? as the space is not in the ripe region, with 39 flavors of integers, your question is not answerable. randy

1 0

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Last Call for Comments on Draft Document for Reverse Delegation Policy ripe-302
by Emilio Madaio 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC published for community review the draft policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". Information on the Cosmetic Surgery Project and the draft policy document are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The Review Phase for this document has ended. After the feedback received, the Address Policy Working Group co-chairs decided to move into the Last Call period for comments. This period will last until 26 October 2012. We encourage you to read this merged version. Please send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net by 26 October 2012. Best Regards Emilio Madaio RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by Sander Steffann 15 Oct '12

15 Oct '12

Hi, > Lets check RIPE-530: > > > Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a > > permanent or non-permanent basis. > > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of > > the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. > > For temporary transfer we make 2 transfers: 1. from LIR A to LIR B. .... 2. Form LIR B to LIR A (back). While address space may not transfer it on within 24 months, so we can't transfer back earlier than in 2 years. Ah, there is the misunderstanding. Giving back the address space is not a separate transfer. It's part of the original (temporary) transfer. This rule is only to prevent people from selling addresses on. - Sander

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Oct '12

14 Oct '12

And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а): >For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

6 11

FW: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '12

11 Oct '12

>For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time. >Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat

2 1

RIPE-552 Impact of extending initial allocation from /32 to /29
by Octavio Alfageme 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear all, According to RIPE552 LIRs may easily request the extension of its IPv6 /32 initial allocation up to a /29. However, if we take a look at the reservation made for some initial /32 allocations, we find that it is /30. For instance (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest) ripencc|FR|ipv6|2a00:7900::|32|20110214|allocated ripencc|NL|ipv6|2a00:7940::|32|20120118|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7980::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|DE|ipv6|2a00:79c0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|NO|ipv6|2a00:7a00::|32|20110120|allocated ripencc|GB|ipv6|2a00:7a40::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|AT|ipv6|2a00:7a80::|32|20110509|allocated ripencc|RU|ipv6|2a00:7ac0::|32|20120119|allocated ripencc|ES|ipv6|2a00:7b00::|32|20110214|allocated In case any of this LIRs wants to request the extension to /29, would he receive a 'brand new' /29 and will have to give its original /32 back? I would be grateful if you could clarify me the process. No need to say that my company is one of the LIRs affected by this situation. Kind regards Octavio Alfageme

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
by pooranmittal 06 Oct '12

06 Oct '12

Hi, Myself Pooran Mittal, member of APNIC [IMCL-IN] with AS 17665. How RIPE can help me to get IPV4 addresses. Please help me. Regards Pooran Mittal ----- Original Message ----- From: <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:30 PM Subject: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4 > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) > 2. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Sander Steffann) > 3. Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and > simple re-using IP-addresses (James Blessing) > 4. Re: Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 (Richard Hartmann) > 5. 2012-06 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced > (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion) (Emilio Madaio) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:20:58 +0200 > From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <506C2DAA.3040509(a)go6.si> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 10/3/12 1:41 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 12:55:53PM +0200, Marcin Kuczera wrote: >>> I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would >>> allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? >> >> "Too controversial to go forward". > > It is a "yes" or "no" question, afaik :) > > Cheers, Jan > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:17:43 +0200 > From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <A3853826-7A62-4EE4-94D6-EBF1A6F5AE88(a)steffann.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hello Marcin, > >> I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would >> allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? > > You can find the status here: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > The policy proposal is in the review phase and under discussion until the > 8th of October. > > Sander Steffann > APWG co-chair > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 17:01:50 +0100 > From: James Blessing <james.blessing(a)despres.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] > Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses > To: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAL5RSTKfm-c1O2k3q9jC01u_YK9-Az_7tfTW9DAFpzY04p9xVQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 3 October 2012 15:21, LeaderTelecom B.V. <info(a)leadertelecom.nl> wrote: >> You can sub-allocate up to a /20 every twelve months to a single >> downstream >> Internet Service Provider (ISP). The minimum sub-allocation size is a >> /24. >> This is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated and that >> allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made by a >> downstream network operator. > > Okay > > So wouldn't the best change be to allow up to allocation window per > annum plus an ability to go via the RIPE NCC for further > sub-allocations? > > J > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:15:35 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8 > To: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Cc: Marcin Kuczera <marcin(a)leon.pl>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CAD77+gRkADX31OdFWdT_bt6kwPSo3ZyzNtvAbT-y=75E3Dbg1A(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I can't inline my replies on Android, sorry. > > The official status page is of limited use in this context, but the > official date/timeline _is_ good to be reminded of; thanks. > > PS: I didn't attend and simply stole the 66 from Nick ;) > > Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity. >

2 1

Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
by Marcin Kuczera 05 Oct '12

05 Oct '12

hello, I'am lost a little bit, what is the current status of policy, that would allow single /24 PI IPv4 assignment from the last /8 ??? Regards, Marcin

7 10

2012-06 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Emilio Madaio 04 Oct '12

04 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has ended. A draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
by LeaderTelecom B.V. 03 Oct '12

03 Oct '12

Dear Community, Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community. This idea was presented on Address Policy Working Group, Thursday 27 Sep, RIPE 65, Amsterdam. -- Alexey Ivanov Owner & General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. Owner & Managing Director LeaderTelecom B.V.

2 5