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

FW: ASNs of organizations in reported IPv4 transfers
by Giotsas, Vasileios 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

Hello everyone, I'm a researcher from Lancaster University (UK) studying the IPv4 transfer market, and I'm trying to correlate IPv4 transfers with BGP routing dynamics. I've collected the reported transfers but they list only owner organizations names and not AS numbers (ASN). Same with the reported transfers of other RIRs. I tried to map the organization names to ASNs using WHOIS but I couldn’t find a match for about 50% of the organizations involved in transfers. What is the rationale behind not listing the AS number? Is it because organizations without an ASN (e.g. enterprise networks) can obtain an address? Is there a suggested way of mapping the organizations to ASNs besides WHOIS lookup? Thank you and best wishes for 2020! Vasileios Giotsas Lecturer School of Computing and Communications Lancaster University ☎ 01524 595130 https://bit.ly/LancsGiotsas

3 3

A list of actions during quarantine
by Töma Gavrichenkov 13 Dec '19

13 Dec '19

Peace, There's a page[1] on the NCC web site which says: "When we recover IPv4 addresses, we hold on to them for a quarantine period. During this time, we take a number of actions that help to make it clear the addresses are no longer associated with their previous holder and should be considered as “new” address space." Is the particular list of actions applied to an IPv4 prefix outlined somewhere? Is it only prevention of routing, or e.g. trash cans like Spamhaus are contacted too? [1] https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/how-waiting-list-works -- Töma

2 1

2019-06 Review Phase (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)
by Petrit Hasani 09 Dec '19

09 Dec '19

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy" is now in the Review Phase. This proposal aims to remove unnecessary text and simplify the IPv6 policy. The proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - Clarifies the definition of 'end site' The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06#impact-analysis And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06/draft As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of 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 Working Group (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 7 January 2020. -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Automatic updates to the RIPE Policy Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
by Petrit Hasani 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Dear Colleagues, As a result of the depletion of the RIPE NCC free IPv4 pool, the following automatic updates were initiated to the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", as described in the policy document itself. 1) On Friday, 22 November 2019, in accordance with section 5.2 "Unforeseen circumstances" of the policy document, the RIPE NCC started distributing equivalents of /22 IPv4 allocations from the /16 IPv4 block that was reserved for unforeseen circumstances. The relevant section [5.2 “Unforeseen circumstances”] has therefore been deleted from the document and the subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly. 2) Today, Monday 25 November 2019, the RIPE NCC distributed the last equivalent of /22 IPv4 address space from the available pool. Therefore, as described in the policy document, section 5.1 was replaced with the contents of section 5.1bis, and section 5.1bis was deleted from the policy document. Section 5.1 "Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs" now states: "On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following: 1. All allocation requests are placed on a first-come-first-served waiting list. No guarantees are given about the waiting time. 2. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /24. 3. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC is limited to a maximum of 256 IPv4 addresses (a single /24). If this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded, an LIR cannot request an IPv4 allocation under this policy." The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2019-07 Discussion Period extended until 19 December (Default assignment size for IXPs)
by Petrit Hasani 20 Nov '19

20 Nov '19

Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" has been extended until 19 December 2019. This proposal aims to change the default IXP assignment size from a /24 to a needs-based model, with a /27 as a minimum. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-07 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Nov '19

15 Nov '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to change the default IXP assignment size from a /24 to a needs-based model, with a /27 as a minimum. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-07 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 November 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

12 18

2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
by Petrit Hasani 04 Nov '19

04 Nov '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-08, "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space", is now available for discussion in the Routing Working Group This proposal aims to instructs the RIPE NCC to create ROAs with origin AS0 for all unallocated and unassigned address space under its control. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08 This proposed policy may be of interest to the Address Policy working group as well. Therefore, we encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <routing-wg(a)ripe.net> before 29 November 2019. -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

10 18

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
by Sander Steffann 31 Oct '19

31 Oct '19

Hi, > This proposal aims to instructs the RIPE NCC to create ROAs with origin AS0 for all unallocated and unassigned address space under its control. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-08 I have read the policy and I don't see any downside to doing this. Creating those ROAs reflects the intention correctly, so let's do this. Cheers, Sander

2 1

2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Oct '19

10 Oct '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to remove obsoleted text and simplify the IPv6 policy. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 November 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

5 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)
by Carlos Friaças 10 Oct '19

10 Oct '19

Hi, +1 support. Regards, Carlos ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:51:14 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> To: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy) Sander Steffann wrote on 08/10/2019 15:01: >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 >> Policy" >> is now available for discussion. >> >> This proposal aims to remove obsoleted text and simplify the IPv6 policy. > > I think this is a sensible update. Support. agreed - this looks like a good idea, and thanks to Jordi for doing some housekeeping in this area. Nick

2 1