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

policy 2015-1
by Amir Mohsenian 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 3

-1 for 2015-1
by پیمان پورحکاک 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 1

I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

(no subject)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by listas 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Mathew Newton 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

On 08/06/2015 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Fully support.

1 0

2015-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Marco Schmidt 05 Jun '15

05 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" has ended. A new draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Thomas01.Schmidt＠conti.de 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Fri May 22 John Collins wrote: ----------------------------------------- Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. ----------------------------------------- I represent on of these "Enterprise LIRs" and like to support this proposal. The organisational structure could request specific consideration in the IP address management design (e.g. caused by M&A, subsidaries or divisional independencies under a holding). The removed text in the new policy proposal ------------------begin--------------- If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. -----------------end------------------ gives the freedom to allocated an address design independ by the number of existing users. We currently face the existing limitation by become LIR at ARIN and APNIC too. The additional address allocations helps us to cover the global parts of the company with sufficient address space but with additional expenses and costs. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards / Meilleures salutations Thomas Schmidt IT Corporate Infrastructure Strategy, Network IT CO IN ST N Continental AG Vahrenwalder Str. 9, D-30165 Hannover, GERMANY Phone: 0049 511 938-1269 Telefax: 0049 511 938-81269 Email: Thomas01.Schmidt(a)conti.de http://www.conti.com http://www.continental-corporation.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Postfach/Postbox 1 69, D-30001 Hannover Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Reitzle Vorstand/Executive Board: Dr. Elmar Degenhart (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Jose A. Avila, Dr. Ralf Cramer, Frank Jourdan, Helmut Matschi, Dr. Ariane Reinhart, Wolfgang Schaefer, Nikolai Setzer, Hans-Juergen Duensing Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Hannover Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 3527, USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 115645799 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Proprietary and confidential. Distribution only by express authority of Continental AG or its subsidiaries.

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by John.Collins＠BIT.admin.ch 28 May '15

28 May '15

Dear Colleagues, On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: ------------------------------------------------- > > A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. > > The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. hierarchical and geographic structuring ---------------------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. the segmentation of infrastructure for security ------------------------------------------------------------ Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. planned longevity of allocation ---------------------------------------- Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. And thank you very much for reading this far! Best Regards, John

6 6

WG: Re: 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by alexander.brinkmann＠kaufland.com 26 May '15

26 May '15

Hi all, I support this proposal, too, Thanks John Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Alexander Brinkmann Tel.: +49 7132 949665 Fax: +49 7132 9479665 EMail: alexander.brinkmann(a)kaufland.com KI 967850 IT International / IT Governance / Netzwerk Design und IT-Sicherheit Office: Haller Straße 60 74189 Weinsberg http://www.kaufland.de http://www.spannende-it.de Kaufland Informationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG Postfach 12 53 - 74149 Neckarsulm Kommanditgesellschaft Sitz: Neckarsulm Registergericht: Stuttgart HRA 104163 ----- Weitergeleitet von Alexander Brinkmann/IS/KI/KAUFLAND am 26.05.2015 11:36 ----- Von: Carlos Gómez Muñoz <carlosf.gomez(a)seap.minhap.es> An: John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Kopie: mschmidt(a)ripe.net Datum: 26.05.2015 11:03 Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Gesendet von: "address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> I support the proposal with the addition suggested by John. Best regards, Carlos Gómez es.seap Spanish government LIR El 22/05/2015 a las 11:45, John.Collins(a)BIT.admin.ch escribió: > Dear Colleagues, > > On Tue Apr 28 Marco Schmidt wrote: > ------------------------------------------------- > >> A proposed change to the RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" now is open for discussion. >> >> The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 >> > > I supported this proposal is a previous post and I still do. However as Marco said in his original message above "additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure" would be considered by the RIPE-NCC. I want to make a suggestion for such "additional aspects". It might make sense that some inclusive evaluation criteria are listed in the policy. This would make the evaluation task of the RIPE-NCC easier and would also simplify allocation requests from LIRs. > > I suggest that the following text replaces the existing text in the policy in section 5.1.2 (Initial allocation size) > > -------------------- begin ------------------------------------------ > "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. > > Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and the planned longevity of allocation." > -------------------- end -------------------------------------------- > > > Here are some remarks concerning the "additional aspects" (inclusive/positive criteria in the suggested text): > > number of users, the extent of the organisation's infrastructure > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is like the status quo. It allows the RIPE-NCC to consider the number of existing and future (note the removal of the word "existing" in the suggested policy text) users and the organisation's infrastructure when evaluating address plans. It seems logical that these criteria are included in the evaluation of requests as there is a relationship between the number users and infrastructure and the needed addresses. The more users and the bigger the infrastructure, the more address are needed. > > hierarchical and geographic structuring > ---------------------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider requirements of (national or multi-national) commercial organisations, governments and military organisations like the UK-MOD concerning the reflection of hierarchy and geographical coverage in the address plan. Even autonomous (sub)organisations are catered for by the 'hierarchy' aspects. > > the segmentation of infrastructure for security > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Allows the RIPE-NCC to consider address plans which cater for the separation of infrastructures for security reasons which might include data protection, network and system protection and business continuity assurance for disaster recovery. > > planned longevity of allocation > ---------------------------------------- > Allows the RIPE-NCC to take future planning of organisations into account when they reserve enough address space for many years in an effort to avoid renumbering and (at the end of the day) to avoid undue de-aggregation. I do not propose that a specific number of years is mentioned as the interpretation of longevity for one organisation will differ from that of another organisation. As RIPE-NCC's Andrea Cima pointed out at RIPE70, some LIRs plan in terms of 20 years, others in terms of 10 years etc. > > > Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space. > > And thank you very much for reading this far! > > Best Regards, > John > > >

1 0