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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can´t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you’re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that “any” subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the “actual” initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this “total” evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup … but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> en nombre de <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Responder a: <John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch> Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 1

2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Dec '16

14 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

9 10

Proceeding with proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification)
by Sander Steffann 27 Nov '16

27 Nov '16

Hello working group, The end of the discussion phase of proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification) has been reached. At this point in the PDP the proposer, in agreement with the working group chairs, decides whether to move forward. The chairs have determined that we have general consensus that the use-cases described in the proposal are valid ways to use PI space and the policy should reflect that. However there has been discussion on the exact way to fix the policy. The proposer has told us that he wants to continue with the current proposal and continue to the review phase. We decided to agree with this and go to review phase. The RIPE NCC will make an impact analysis and based on that we can continue the discussion on the list, review the proposal and where necessary adjust the exact wording of the proposal. Cheers, Sander & Gert Your working group chairs

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 63, Issue 6
by constanze buerger 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

+1 for the proposal Am 24.11.2016 22:29 schrieb <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net>: > 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://lists.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: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Silvia Hagen) > 2. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) > 3. Re: 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial > and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) (Carsten Br?ckner) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:59:00 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch> > To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal > (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E70ABF899B@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear WG > > > > I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of > subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It > also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated > initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria. > > > > Silvia Hagen > > Chair Swiss IPv6 Council > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von Marco Schmidt > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising > the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and > Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" > > is now available for discussion. > > > > The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation > requirements with the initial allocation requirements. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 > > > > 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 23 > December 2016. > > > > Regards, > > > > Marco Schmidt > > Policy Development Officer > > RIPE NCC > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > >

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
by Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch) 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Dear WG, On 24 November 2016 13:16, Marco Schmidt wrote: > A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" > is now available for discussion. > > The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. I am pleased to see the arrival of this policy proposal as whilst the additional assessment criteria introduced by proposal 2015-03 allowed the legitimate requirements of a broader range of organisations to be satisfied it was of benefit only to those that had not previously received address space (and/or those in a position to return/exchange it). These same requirements do however exist equally for many other organisations who should not be discriminated against simply because they happened to have received their initial allocation under the previous assessment criteria. The proposed policy serves to remove this discrimination and provide the same benefits to all, notwithstanding the unavoidable practical difficulty of providing contiguous address space to organisations who may find themselves 'landlocked' by allocations already made to other organisations. In light of the above I fully support the adoption and implementation of the proposed policy. Regards, Mathew

1 0

RIPE Accountability Task Force
by Athina Fragkouli 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 73 there was support for a review of the RIPE community's accountability, by looking at its current procedures, documentation and structures. An Accountability Task Force has been established to carry out this work and will have its first meeting in the coming weeks, after which a charter and additional information will be published. A mailing list will also be created for the Task Force’s discussions and the archives will be publicly available. You can find the accountability presentation at RIPE 73 here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1248/ If you have feedback or would like to join the Task Force, please send an email to <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

Migration Datacenter
by ANGEL MARTINEZ SANCHEZ 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Hello, We are going to migrate from our actually datacenter to another one. We have /22 IPs block and not have AS number, our datacenter announce them. Our plan is as follows: - We already add new route objects before migration and will remove old after migration. - At dawn on Sunday, November 27 about 3:00 AM, we will shut down all our servers from the current data center. - At that point we will delete the current route ASXXXX in RIPE DB from inetnum XXX.XXX.XX.0/22 and only the route object corresponding to new datacenter will remain. - We will contact new datacenter to activate our IP block on their router and configure the requested gateway. - We will dismantle the entire rack from old datacenter and move it to the new datacenter where we will start up all our servers again. We need to know if the procedure is correct and very important, the time it takes to propagate the new route of our IP block since we delete the current ASXXXXX and the new ASXXXX is activated by new datacenter. We also need to know if we depend on any action by the current data center to complete this procedure. For example, if they have to remove our block from their AS or their router and that would happen in case they refused to do so on the date indicated for the migration. Thanks and regards. Angel Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 1

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Marius Cristea 18 Nov '16

18 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, Over the last years RIPE NCC has imposed a "rule" that when the last IPs are transferred the transferring LIR has to pay the full annual membership fee (even if the LIR was not a member of RIPE for that entire year). I think that if this is something everybody agrees with, it should be inserted into the policy text to make this very clear. But if not, then maybe it would be useful to add a text which would simply say that RIPE NCC should relate exclusively on this policy when processing transfer requests and is not mandated by the RIPE community in imposing any kind of abusive taxes. I also have a problem with the 24 months period of keeping the IPv4 addresses after merging 2 companies. It's exactly our case, we want to buy and merge with a telecom company and we will no longer need all their IPv4 addresses since we have more than enough by merging both companies resources. We want to transfer a part of the IP addresses to other Company that really need them. Why to wait 24 months? Best Regards, Marius Cristea

11 32

2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Nov '16

17 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 21 November 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

19 33

2016-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Marco Schmidt 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, The proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive… Reason for withdrawal: The proposer decided to abandon the proposal as he felt that the ongoing discussion was damaging the RIPE community’s reputation. As nobody stepped forward to take over the authorship this proposal, the proposal was withdrawn. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0