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

Agenda for APWG at RIPE 76 in Marseille
by Sander Steffann 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Marseille in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 16, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 16, 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. Regards, Gert Döring & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection - longest-serving chair (Sander Steffann) stepping down - Sander is not volunteering for another term, so we'll select a new co-chair C. The role and function of the ASO within ICANN Public consultation, Axel Pawlik D. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO - 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 RIPE 75 - brief overview of new proposals (if any) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back E. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy Jordi Palet Martinez / Erik Bais / Juri Bogdanov 2018-02 "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" Jordi Palet Martinez / Erik Bais 2018-03 Fixing Outdated Information in the IPv4 Policy Andrea Cima Y. Open Policy Hour The Open Policy Hour is a showcase for your policy ideas.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

2 3

2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Apr '18

18 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-02, "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to clarify the definition of “Assign” in ripe-699 (section 2.6). The non-permanent provision of up to a /64 prefix to third parties shall not be considered a sub-assignment. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-02 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 15 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

5 8

Proposal Implemented: 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification"
by Marco Schmidt 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification". The policy change re-defined the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. The provision of separate addresses (/128) to customers of the assignment holder will not be considered a sub-assignment. More information, especially for IPv6 PI assignments, can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/request-ipv6/ipv6 The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699 Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

RIPE 75 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 12 Apr '18

12 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 75 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-75-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

Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8
by Janos Zsako 02 Apr '18

02 Apr '18

Dear all, Several existing and potential LIRs have complained about the fact that a /22 may not be enough for starting an Internet service. While there is a general agreement that this allocation size should not be changed during the last /8 policy, it may be useful to make some exceptions in some properly justified cases. There is also a general agreement that people should take care of their health, they should eat healthy food and do sufficient physical exercise, possibly by going regularly to the gym. I have thought of a possibility to allocate up to a /20 from the last /8 pool to the companies that can prove that they encourage and help their employees to take care of their help, and that the employees themselves do take advantage of these possibilities. I already have a couple of initial suggestions for consideration, like the average number of hours of workout per employee per week, the average Body Mass Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index) per employee, and a couple of similar good ways of measuring the health status at the company. I also though that computing a simple average may disadvantage larger companies, therefore some formula taking into account the size of the different departments and the values measured there could be worked out, similar to the HD ratio used in determining the address utilisation (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699#hd_ratio). This could make the proposal more fair to large enterprises. There is, however, quite some work to be done to make these ideas properly implementable. I think we should set up a small task force to determine the criteria such LIRs should meet. The time is pressing, we have to act quickly in order to be able to discuss the proposal in Marseilles. Anyone who volunteers for the Task Force should contact me ASAP. We can then come up with a formal proposal and present it to the working group, by following the formal steps of the PDP. I am looking forward to being contacted by the volunteers. Best regards, Janos PS: I am sure some people, when they hear about a new policy proposal for IPv4, they will come up with the usual argument that this is like arranging the deck chairs again. I have to mention, however, that the latest scientific research proved that the sinking of the Titanic could have been delayed by several hours if the deck chairs were properly arranged in due time. Therefore, this proposal may also contribute to a better Internet on the long run. PS2: To those who had the patience to read this e-mail I wish a Happy 1 April!

5 4

LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
by Marco Schmidt 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, We would like to make you aware of a policy proposal that is being discussed in the LACNIC community, called "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)". You can find the proposal here: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1?language=en This is a global policy proposal, meaning that it would apply to all five RIRs. However, each RIR community would first need to ratify an identical version of the policy before it could be implemented. No such policy proposal has yet been submitted in our service region. We will let you know of any further developments. You can find more on the global policy development process here: https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process/ Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

12 17

(no subject)
by Christopher Hardwick 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

What do you mean addres policy iv got alout to deal with and hundredes of documents to sighn send me the name of the policy you need

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) (fwd)
by Carlos Friaças 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Greetings, Jordi, thanks for this work (and the diffchecker really helps!) :-) This seems to be the simplest approach (organisation=LIR). I don't believe we should keep the less explicit wording on the policy, thus i support this proposal. Best Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:05:18 From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 Now folks don't have any excuse to not comment ;-) Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> Fecha: lunes, 19 de marzo de 2018, 16:48 Para: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> CC: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Dear AP WG, On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion. This policy proposal was prompted by the discussion at the last RIPE meeting, where the NCC brought up the issue that the IPv6 allocation policy talks about "organization" without ever defining what that is - "one LIR account", "one legal organization" (which can hold multiple LIR accounts), etc. Jordi volunteered to clean up the text, and here's the proposed changes - but without some feedback from *you*, we can't clean this up. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 March 2018. Thus: feedback please. Like - "the text matches the original intent as I have always understood the policy, and we should go there" - "this is not my understanding of the original policy, because ..." - "never touch a working policy!" - "I do not see this as a big problem, but the new text works for me" Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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

2016-04 Proposal Accepted (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification". The goal of this proposal was to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 The new RIPE Document is ripe-699 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699 We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

2016-04 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 13 February 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 February 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2