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

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers
by fransossen＠yahoo.com 27 Mar '17

27 Mar '17

Hi, Good plan. Will there be any measures put in place so that mass clean ups like that won't be needed? Meaning catching them earlier on in the process. In the internal processing side, will the RIPE NCC flag the ASNs that are justifiably not publicly visible. So that they don't get asked the same question every couple of months? Cheers, David -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 3/23/17, Laurens Hoogendoorn <Laurens.Hoogendoorn(a)ripe.net> wrote: Subject: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017, 12:18 PM Dear colleagues, As previously mentioned at RIPE 73, we are planning a project to clean up unused AS Numbers. You can find this presentation here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1456/ According to ripe-679, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" if an organisation no longer uses as AS Number, it should be returned to the free pool so it can be reassigned: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679 There are currently around 6,600 ASNs in our service region (held or sponsored by 2,682 LIRs) that are not being advertised in the routing system. This represents around 22% of the ~30,000 ASNs assigned by the RIPE NCC. There are a number of legitimate reasons why an ASN might not be advertised in the routing system. However, it is also possible that the holder doesn't exist anymore or the ASN is no longer needed. Not only should unused ASNs be returned, but it's important to clean up out of date registrations, which affect the quality of data in the RIPE Registry. Our Proposal We plan to email the LIR or sponsoring LIR for each unannounced ASN and ask if the resource is still needed. We will group together ASNs that are sponsored or held by the same LIR to minimise the number of emails. We will ask if the ASN is currently being used or if there are plans to start using the ASN in the coming three months. Organisations can always request a new ASN in the future if they need one. If we do not receive a reply or if the ASN will not be used within three months, we will start the process of returning the ASN to the free pool. The deregistration process will take three months, during which time the LIR can still indicate that the ASN is needed. If the ASN is still needed, the validity of the assignment (such as the multihoming requirement) will not be re-evaluated. We do not expect any significant cost or impact on other services, as most of this process will be automated and we will not need to re-evaluate the assignments. Contacting all relevant LIRs will take less than six months. Please review this proposal and send any comments or other feedback before Thursday 6 April to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Laurens Hoogendoorn Registration Services RIPE NCC

13 19

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers
by fransossen＠yahoo.com 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

The every couple of months thing is the problem. I actually see no reason in asking again other than when the LIR gets ARC'ed. Having a fee would also had help prune off some of the dead ASNs. Cheers, David -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 3/23/17, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers To: fransossen(a)yahoo.com Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017, 4:35 PM Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:53:27PM +0000, fransossen(a)yahoo.com wrote: > In the internal processing side, will the RIPE NCC flag the ASNs that are justifiably not publicly visible. > So that they don't get asked the same question every couple of months? Well, if they keep being not publically visible, maybe they *should* be asked regularily if they are *still* in use? For the same reason we're asking today - setups have changed, people and companies cease to exist, stuff starts being no longer used. (I wouldn't ask "every couple of months", though, maybe "every few years" - but that's for the community to decide, in the end) 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

1 0

RIPE 74 APWG agenda, draft 0.1
by Gert Doering 20 Mar '17

20 Mar '17

Hi APWG folks, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Budapest in the following time slots: Wednesday, May 10, 09:00 - 10:30 Wednesday, May 10, 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. Depending on the amount of "not yet known" things to show up on the agenda, we might only need one time slot. In which case, we can all join the Connect WG for a change :-) regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. WG Chair Selection 10 min - longest-serving chair (Gert Döring) stepping down - willing to be re-appointed and serve another term C. Current Policy Topics - Marco Schmidt, NCC PDO 20 min - 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 72 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Andrea Cima 25 min (+ discussion with the group) F. Discussion of open policy proposals 20 min (more specifically: presentation on the status of the open policy proposals and Q&A, discussion will take place on the list) 2016-04 IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification Maximilian Wilhelm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 12:00-13:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome back Y. Open Policy Hour 5 min 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 -- 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

1 0

2015-04 Proposal Accepted (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 16 Mar '17

16 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies". This policy change created a single policy document with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The policy change also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 The new RIPE Document is ripe-682, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682 The following RIPE policies haven been updated as well and received a new document number: ripe-679, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-679 ripe-680, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-680 ripe-681, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-681 The following RIPE policy has been marked as obsolete and replaced by ripe-682: ripe-644, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources" We estimate that this proposal will take around three months to fully implement. In order to ensure a correct and consistent handling of requests, the current procedures remain in place until the implementation is completed. This applies in particular to transfers of IPv4 and 16-bit ASNs. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/policy-impleme… 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

2 1

WG chair rotation - call for volunteers
by Sander Steffann 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

Hello working group, As per the WG chair policy we gave us, the WG chairs are appointed for a two year duty, and then have to step down (and can be re-appointed). https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… It is Gert's turn to step down, and he has announced he will do this at the upcoming RIPE meeting. This means we have an empty position and are looking for volunteers to step forward. The job description and responsibilities are documented in https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542. Gert has indicated that he is volunteering to serve another term, so we already have one candidate for the empty position. But don't let that deter you from volunteering! If you have any questions about what it means to be a working group chair then please contact us and we'll prepare you as good as we can. And if you want to volunteer and be eligible for selection at the upcoming RIPE meeting then please state so on the mailing list along with a short introduction for those of us that don't know you yet. Cheers, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

2 1

WG chair rotation
by Gert Doering 10 Mar '17

10 Mar '17

Dear AP WG, as per the WG chair policy we gave us, the WG chairs are appointed for a two year duty, and then have to step down (and can be re-appointed). https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/address-policy-wg-chair-selecti… This year, it's my term to step down. Which I will do at the upcoming RIPE meeting - and Sander as remaining chair will oversee the selection of a new WG chair. I am happy and willing to serve another term, so there's already one candidate for your consideration :-) 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

1 0

2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '17

10 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. 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 9 March 2017 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/2015-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 9 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 3

2016-05 going to last-call (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Sander Steffann 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Hello Working Group, The last review phase of 2016-05 (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) has just ended, and for this policy proposal a quick decision of the working group chairs was easy. There has only been positive feedback from you so we have declared consensus and asked the RIPE NCC to move the proposal to the Last Call phase. The positive feedback to the current version was from: - John Collins - Ian Dickinson - Sascha Knabe - Martin Krengel - Frank Meyer - Mathew Newton Thanks to the working group for working on this proposal, Sander Steffann RIPE APWG co-chair

1 0

2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2

2016-05 I agree
by Frank Meyer 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen

3 2