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

additional /22
by Mojtaba Abolhasani 05 May '16

05 May '16

+1 2015-05

1 0

Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update
by Sergiu IANCIUC 02 May '16

02 May '16

hello, PLS, take in consideration the situation Company X has a /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 spaces and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the space allocated to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to not be the part from the policy - "requirements, such as the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space before." What are you thinking about? Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: http://www.itns.md Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... This is a forwarded message From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update ===8<==============Original message text=============== Dear colleagues, Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so on the relevant working group mailing list. Proposals Open for Discussion: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" Proposals Awaiting Input: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" Proposal Overviews: PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria" OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not transferred any IPv4 address space before. STATUS: Discussion Phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 13 May 2016 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 ===== The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any further in the PDP. PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" OVERVIEW: Aims to create 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. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding period for scarce resources will be applied. STATUS: Review Phase – Awaiting decision from working group chair FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 PROPOSAL: 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy" OVERVIEW: Aims for a mandatory abuse contact for Legacy Internet Resource holders in the RIPE Database. STATUS: Discussion Phase – Awaiting decision from proposer FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01 The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on www.ripe.net: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-… We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ===8<===========End of original message text===========

3 6

(no subject)
by mostafa shahdadi 30 Apr '16

30 Apr '16

-- Sent from Gmail Mobile

1 0

samuel.iii.barfield@hotmail.com
by Samuel Barfield III 26 Apr '16

26 Apr '16

Samuel Samuel Business of Information

1 0

RIPE 71 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Marco Schmidt 25 Apr '16

25 Apr '16

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 71 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-71 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
by remco.vanmook＠gmail.com 22 Apr '16

22 Apr '16

This confusion has been haunting the final /8 policy from day one - it was never about what to do with specifically 185/8, but what to do with all future allocations from the moment we needed to start allocating out of it. The policy text itself was never limited to a single /8, nor was that limitation any part of the discussion. Remco Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net> To: "Randy Bush" <randy(a)psg.com>, "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> Cc: "RIPE address policy WG" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision) Date: Sat, Apr 16, 2016 11:53 On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote: > the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY. The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most people consider new entry. Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve "new entry". Did you actually read the new text ? > pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything. No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

8 14

trouble with email client repreated messages
by Riccardo Gori 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

Please list consider only my last message of repeated ones about "Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)" I am getting in trouble with my email client and seems to send sort of draft revision of messages wich I didn't even saved as draft on it. It's second time happens and I didn't realize how. I am just replying normally and leaving opened on my pc the the draft and while waiting it seems to send 5 minutes time revision to list. Sorry I am using Thunderbird 38.7.2 and I was not aware of this kind of problem. I will change/update it as soon as possible. Sorry, It's happing out of my control. regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori(a)wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info(a)wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

2015-05: Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by Denis Fondras 29 Mar '16

29 Mar '16

Hello, A few comment about this draft : - "1. The size of the allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." may be reworded as "1. The size of the initial allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." - "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry." may be reworded as "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry in the last 18 months."

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Erik Bais 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

Hi, As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons are discussed. Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook ( with no hats ) that there might be some future issue on similar policy changes that might provide a policy issue as the previous version of the draft had. While I understand his line of thinking, I dont think that we give the legal team enough credit to spot future issues similar as the one in the past draft.. I like to think there is a learning curve And I will also invite Remco to keep reading future policy proposals from myself and others to make sure that there arent any un-intentional issues that might be introduced in future policy. Having said that, he also stated that there is currently nothing wrong with the version at the table. On the final remark of Remco, if we need to see if we need to review the actual current structure of the policies.. I agree and I would like to have a good discussion on that. But that is to me a discussion outside the scope of this policy proposal. On the suggestion of Remco and second by Tore (also with no hats), Tore wrote : > Remco suggested adding references to the new policy document in lieu of > the removed sections in ripe-638, ripe-649, and ripe-655. I would not > object to that. This was later also agreed to by a (+1) from Sascha Luck (also without any hats), Guy Chilton (Again .. no hats..) And if we agree that the blunt removal of the transfer text in the current affected policies and having a single transfer document isn't clear enough, I'm not against adding a reference to the new proposed transfer policy document. The only response opposing to the current structure is Peter Koch. Peter stated that he is : > "Generally I'm always nervous when policy/legislation is > "streamlined" by "just editorial changes", and also recent experience here > would suggest extreme caution. Things get complicated when they are > taken out of their respective context (tempus and locus)." And I agree partially with him. Doing things with caution is something that we are all part of here.. And I think that we have proven that we are very careful on making certain changes. The biggest change here is indeed the editorial one, however that is to avoid in doing large changes while also doing editorial changes .. it was clear to everyone that the editorial changes was desired by the majority of the community when the initial changes / transfer policy text was written into the policies.. and this was the 'clean-up and stream-line action.' > At least, the work is incomplete as proposed now, simply because the > affected policies will have to be re-published with a new number and timestamp, > so the (outdated) references will have to be adjusted (this includes > evaluation and thus is more than a simple editorial change) and now > obsolete text ought to be dealt with accordingly. The necessity to > add normative references to a new omnibus document has already been mentioned. I'm reading this that Peter could live with the suggestion done by Remco for the references.. if we are going that route.. And from what I've heard, a change like Remco suggested, would not require a complete rehash into the PDP or redoing any phases again. I hope that with the current summary I have given a quick view of where I think we are ... And if Sander and Gert don't mind, I would like to ask to extend the discussion period for 2 weeks to allow for additional comments on this email and perhaps other insights. Regards, Erik Bais Author of 2015-04 ... aka ... The mad hatter ...

4 4

New and Improved IPv4 Address Space Chart
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '16

10 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, During policy discussions, we often see people asking how long the RIPE NCC’s available IPv4 pool will last. This is a good question, as more than three years after the last /8 policy was activated, we still have almost an entire /8 still remaining in our pool. This is made more confusing by the regular allocations we have been receiving from IANA since 2014, which have been counteracting the reduction in addresses that we should have seen due to /22 allocations. To more accurately show the status of our remaining pool, we have updated our IPv4 Address Space Chart, which you can find here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhausti… The updated chart makes the distinction between addresses from the last /8, and addresses that were received from IANA’s Recovered IPv4 Pool (as well as addresses recovered from our service region). We have also published a short article on RIPE Labs with some additional detail about our IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-las… We hope this will help to inform the community’s policy discussions. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1