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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Sonia Garbi Gomez 19 Mar '15

19 Mar '15

Dear all For 2015, all RIPE NCC members are charged an annual service fee of € 1,600 for each LIR account they hold. For New LIRs that are established during the year, the service fee is applied pro rata, meaning thus that new LIRs established during the course of 2015, are charged as follow: New LIR established: Total fee: How the fee is made up: * during first quarter € 3,600 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,600) * during second quarter € 3,200 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,200) * during third quarter € 2,800 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 800) * during fourth quarter € 2,400 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 400) I hope this clarifies the question. best regards Sonia Garbi Gomez Finance Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8"
by Nikolas Pediaditis 19 Mar '15

19 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented the policy proposal 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8". In accordance with the new policy, RIPE NCC members can now request to receive a one time /22 IPv4 allocation from the last /8 without the requirement to already have an IPv6 allocation. The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-634 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis RIPE NCC Registration Services

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Nick Hilliard 18 Mar '15

18 Mar '15

> I think that the more we talk about it, the more this loophole will be > (ab)used. The part that was just theoretical was estimating how long it > will take a company to decide that instead of going to the market, they > could actually go to the RIPE NCC and get a /16 or maybe a /12 at €2.3 - > €3.4 per IP (depending in which quarter you decide to do it). from what I understand, the procedures clarified in RIPE-640 mean that the price of a /22 obtained by LIR churn will remain at startup fee + 1Y membership, and that it doesn't make any difference to the overall cost whether this is done in Q1 or Q4 because when you open a LIR, you are liable for a full year's membership fees. I.e. cost of doing this in 2015 is 1600+2000 = 3600, or €3.51 per ip address. Nick

3 2

2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Mar '15

18 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2014-12, "Allow IPv6 Transfers", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 18 March 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 March 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

APNIC temporarily freezing v4 transfers to RIPE NCC?
by Nick Hilliard 12 Mar '15

12 Mar '15

thanks to Tore for pointing this out, but page 6 of: > http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/80786/apnic-ec-minutes-201… contains the following: > 21. Inter-RIR transfer policy discussion > > The EC considered the Inter-RIR transfer policy discussions (attached). > > The EC unanimously resolved to place a temporary moratorium on inter RIR > transfer with RIPE NCC, pending discussions and confirmation with APNIC, > ARIN and RIPE communities that such transfers will not change APNIC’s > status as sharing reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policy with ARIN. > > Motion proposed by Paul Wilson, seconded by Akinori Maemura. Could someone from APNIC, ARIN or both explain the background to this decision? I haven't seen any discussions in the RIPE community about this, and without knowing the background it seems peculiar that APNIC feels it necessary to consult ARIN about APNIC->RIPE NCC resource transfers. Nick

10 17

2014-13 Proposal Accepted (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Mar '15

12 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies", has been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy change allows the transfer of Autonomous System (AS) numbers within the RIPE NCC service region. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-638 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-638 We estimate that this proposal will take about three months to fully implement. Details of the implementation status are available at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation… We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-10, 2014-11 Proposals Accepted (Language Clarification Proposals)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposals for changes to the following RIPE Documents have been accepted by the RIPE community: ripe-632, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" ripe-452, "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" ripe-233, "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" ripe-476, "Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC" These policy changes replace the term "should" with "must" in cases where the previous wording created unwanted ambiguity in policy documents. You can find the full proposals at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 The new RIPE Documents are called ripe-634, ripe-635, ripe-636 and ripe-637 and are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-634 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-637 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-636 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-635 Note: the order of the original documents, proposals and new RIPE Documents in the lists above all correspond to one another. These proposals are implemented with immediate effect, as the RIPE NCC's procedures, tools and documentation are already in line with the policy understanding that these updates reflect. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] APNIC temporarily freezing v4 transfers to RIPE NCC?
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Hi Andrea, At APNIC39 in Fukuoka, I spoke with Adam Gosling of APNIC. He suggested that the APNIC EC would wait for an interpretation and implementation of the new RIPE inter-RIR policy before making a decision. But, as reflected in the discussion already made, he did feel that an APNIC to RIPE transfer would not be subjected to needs justification because he (and APNIC in general) do not interpret APNIC policy as requiring needs justification if the receiving RIR does not. Two comments on this: Why would APNIC to RIPE not require needs justification when APNIC to APNIC does? Secondly, there are so few IPs within APNIC, how often will there ever be IPs transferred from APNIC to RIPE region under the inter-RIR policy? I would not think this is a big transfer path. The reality is that the huge supply of IPs for transfer to RIPE is in ARIN region and this supply is the target of the new RIPE inter-RIR policy. If APNIC never allows transfer to RIPE region, this would be ok from the perspective of supply to RIPE region. In fact this would be preferable to APNIC allowing transfers with no needs justification, such that ARIN then flipped its position to block transfers to APNIC because they could subsequently to transferred to RIPE. A more tangible flaw is that APNIC has no time delay on re-transfers. While ARIN would not allow a transferred block to be re-transferred for 12 months and RIPE would not allow a transferred block to be re-transferred for 24 months, APNIC has no limitation. But this problem exists today for IPs transferred to APNIC; they can immediately be re-transferred within APNIC. No change just because they could now be transferred to RIPE region, so I can't see ARIN complaining about this now. ARIN being concerned with APNIC allowing transfers to APNIC being subsequently transferred to RIPE should not influence the implementation of direct transfers from ARIN to RIPE using the new needs justification criteria of 50% use over 5 years that ARIN had agreed was compatible with its policy. Based on this analysis, I don't see the initial buy-in or non-buy-in by APNIC as a concern. It is ARIN as a supply that is needed. Sandra Brown Message: 3 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:03:03 +0000 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> To: Andrea Cima <andrea(a)ripe.net>, Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] APNIC temporarily freezing v4 transfers to RIPE NCC? Message-ID: <54FF23C7.4020403(a)inex.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Andrea, On 10/03/2015 16:05, Andrea Cima wrote: > While I cannot answer on behalf of the other RIRs, we have given an > update about the inter-RIR transfer policy proposal last week, during > APNIC 39. I hope the video and transcripts will provide you with the > clarification requested (please see session Policy SIG-3) thanks for the reference. The context is located at pages 35-49 of: https://conference.apnic.net/data/39/5-March-Policy-SIG-3.txt and at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKK_8iJU6E#t=1h09m11s Nick

1 0

2014-13 Last Call for Comments (Allow AS Number Transfers)
by Marco Schmidt 11 Mar '15

11 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2014-13, "Allow AS Number Transfers", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 10 March 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 10 March 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

4 4

2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-10, 2014-11 Last Call for Comments (Language Clarification Proposals)
by Marco Schmidt 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, The proposals described in - 2014-07, Language Clarification in "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" - 2014-08, Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" - 2014-10, Language Clarification in "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" - 2014-11, Language Clarification for "Allocating/Assigning Resources to the RIPE NCC", are now in the Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for these proposal has been reached and they will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose one of these proposal. Any objection must be made by 9 March 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. You can find the full proposals at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-07 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 Please e-mail any final comments about these proposals to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 March 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1