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

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

2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Marco Schmidt 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 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 5 March 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer

28 104

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing, IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Willy MANGA 09 Feb '19

09 Feb '19

Hi, > From: Peter Hessler <phessler(a)theapt.org> > Then come back when you have a solution to force GitHub, Twitter, > Amazon, and a lot more, to launch an IPv6 version of their website. Hopefully it will come soon. At least all have already v6 prefixes used 'inside' their own networks ..

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing, IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Willy MANGA 09 Feb '19

09 Feb '19

Hi, >[...] > From: Carlos Fria?as <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> > [...] > I've been deploying and advocating IPv6 since 2001. Others have been doing > it for a longer period. Within this timespan, i have only read about *one* > organisation which publicly expressed plans to scrap IPv4 from their > network/services, but they have dropped that in the meanwhile... Please don't tell me it's the IPv4 disposal technician [1] team :) 1. https://youtu.be/cNMQUCeNW78?t=2176 -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Gert Doering 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:28:42PM +0100, Corin Langosch wrote: > further why this should be a problem? Usage based billing is very much "usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create at the NCC", which is about what we have now. What you are describing is "sale of goods" - and that is a problem because it would make the addresses the NCC has in stock a taxable asset. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)
by Gert Doering 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:52:29PM +0100, Bernd Sontheimer wrote: > But i don't see that every RIPE member has to pay exactly the same part > as all others. In the beginning we had different registry sizes, XS, S, > M and L with different fees, according to the hold address space. I > think this can and should reflect the different amount of work for > maintenance and services according to the member size. Why is this no > longer possible? Why do we as an operator with 10000 customers exactly > the same fee as one with 10 Mio. customers and much more adress space > (and much more revenue)? I think fair would be a base fee for every > member and an additional fee which is variable depending on the size of > the hold adress space. That has nothing to do with "selling address" > space, but shares only the yearly cost proportional according to the > size of the members. Not necessarily disagreeing with you that there might be good arguments for "who pays not so much" vs. "who pays more". Now, I doubt that a large carrier that has everything automated causes as much cost at the NCC as a new LIR that opens a support ticket twice a month... so, shall the new LIR pay twice the amount that DTAG pays? But anyway: as Jim Reid correctly remarked, this is a different thread, *and* doesn't belong into APWG anyway. Fees are a member business, and need to be voted on in the member meeting (AGM) and discussed on the ripe-members list. So: please stop this particular sub-discussion on the APWG list. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] can deadbeat LIRs reverse IPv4 exhaustion?
by Gert Doering 07 Feb '19

07 Feb '19

Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:14:18AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > Besides, there???s no mechanism or policy for the NCC to recover addresses from LIRs that don???t pay their bills. If such mechanisms or policies existed, they???d be unworkable. There???s no way of knowing for sure that those addresses weren???t being used. So if they were reclaimed, the addresses couldn???t be allocated to someone else. Uh. There actually is - if a LIR stops paying their NCC member fees, the LIR account will be closed, and the address space will be reclaimed. After sufficient quarantaine, the addresses will be allocated to someone else. (There is no mechanism to reclaim addresses from LIR that "do not use them", because they were given out under policies that had no such clause - but that's different from "LIRs that don't pay their bills") Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) (fwd)
by Carlos Friaças 06 Feb '19

06 Feb '19

I was unaware about this list limitation, but hope this helps... :-) Regards, Carlos ========= Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:18:45 From: Michael Kafka <mika(a)net-cat.at> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on this list, cannot reply to old topic Hi everyone, I'd like to join the discussion here on the list but I just registered so I can't reply to the existing topic and I don't want to start a new thread. For the sake of a clean thread, can someone please reply to: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) Thanks, MiKa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 12:04:26 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24" is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 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 5 March 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer

3 3

New on this list, cannot reply to old topic
by Michael Kafka 05 Feb '19

05 Feb '19

Hi everyone, I'd like to join the discussion here on the list but I just registered so I can't reply to the existing topic and I don't want to start a new thread. For the sake of a clean thread, can someone please reply to: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24) Thanks, MiKa

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-01 New Policy Proposal (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS 29 Jan '19

29 Jan '19

Dear all I support the clarification, less confusion is always better. Best regards, Olaf -- Olaf Sonderegger dipl. Ing. FH / MAS in Corporate Innovation Management Chief Operations Architect Infrastructure & Outsourcing Abraxas Informatik AG Waltersbachstrasse 5 | CH-8006 Zürich Direct +41 58 660 44 94 | Mobil +41 79 708 70 86 olaf.sonderegger(a)abraxas.ch | www.abraxas.ch ---------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:07:17 +0100 From: Andreas Worbs <anw(a)artfiles.de> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-01 New Policy Proposal (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA") Message-ID: <7192043c-33f4-9a55-42df-ceb95ea82c06(a)artfiles.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +1 Am 24.01.19 um 10:35 schrieb Dominik Nowacki: > Dear Colleagues, > We are in support of this proposal. > > With Kind Regards,? > Dominik Nowacki? > ? > Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and > Wales. Registered number:?_08750969_ <tel:08750969>. Registered > office:?_88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS_.? > > On 24 Jan 2019, at 07:35, Martin Tonusoo > <martin.tonusoo(a)citictel-cpc.com > <mailto:martin.tonusoo@citictel-cpc.com>> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> is there any feedback on this proposal? While it is more a >> clarification than an actual policy change, then it might clear some >> confusion to create assignments for?LIR own infrastructure within >> their allocation. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Martin Tonusoo >> IP Network Engineer >> -------------------------- >> ? ? ?CITIC Telecom CPC >> ? ?www.citictel-cpc.com <http://www.citictel-cpc.com> >> -------------------------- >> Direct: +372 622 3321 >> NOC 24/7: +372 622 3300 >> NOC 24/7: +7 495 9815670 >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> *From: *"Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net >> <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> >> *To: *"address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> >> *Sent: *Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:00:50 PM >> *Subject: *[address-policy-wg] 2019-01 New Policy Proposal >> (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA") >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for >> "ASSIGNED PA"" is now available for discussion. >> >> 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. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-01 >> >> 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 <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> >> before 15 February 2019. >> >> Regards, >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Officer >> RIPE NCC -- Mit freundlichem Gru? Artfiles New Media GmbH Andreas Worbs Artfiles New Media GmbH | Zirkusweg 1 | 20359 Hamburg Tel: 040 - 32 02 72 90 | Fax: 040 - 32 02 72 95 E-Mail: support(a)artfiles.de | Web: http://www.artfiles.de Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Harald Oltmanns | Tim Evers Eingetragen im Handelsregister Hamburg - HRB 81478

1 0