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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Gert Doering 25 Aug '14

25 Aug '14

Dear Address Policy WG, another one, and then it's enough for today... On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 11 August 2014. the review phase is over. Based on the comments received, the authors have decided to work on the text and a "version 2.0" of the document will come forward soon -> new impact analysis and a new round of discussion phase. Stay tuned :-) 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
by Aleksi Suhonen 19 Aug '14

19 Aug '14

Hello, On 07/11/2014 11:21 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. I know I'm late in the game, but I thought I'd contribute this view rather than stay silent: Remove multi homing requirement for 32bit ASNs only, keep the requirement for 16bit ASNs. I foresee new weird legacy setups run by non-ISPs that still require a unique ASN well into the future. The example I would usually use is factory floor environments, but that is probably not an applicable example here. I hope someone else's imagination can supply a valid example. Cheers, -- Aleksi Suhonen You say "potato", I say "closest-exit."

12 24

[Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 12 Aug '14

12 Aug '14

Dear Sirs, I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. Any Pros/cons? -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#-] в теме письма. --- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 [1]www.LeaderTelecom.ru URL: [2]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [3]http://Symantec.Leadertelecom.ru/ - SSL-сертификаты Symantec (Verisign) URL: [4]http://www.Thawte.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Thawte URL: [5]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS [1] http://www.leadertelecom.ru [2] http://www.instantssl.su/ [3] http://symantec.leadertelecom.ru [4] http://www.thawte.su/ [5] http://www.hostingconsult.ru/

5 11

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)
by Gert Doering 09 Aug '14

09 Aug '14

Dear AP WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. So, tell me your thoughts, please. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

15 26

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-01, "Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4"
by Saloumeh Ghasemi 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the accepted RIPE Policy Proposal 2014-01, "Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4", has now been implemented. The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document, ripe-622, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622/ Please note that we republished the RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", because it was originally published with a small error. The new, correct document is ripe-622, which deprecates ripe-621. As per section 5.5 of this new RIPE Document, Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are now allowed to transfer allocated Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space to other LIRs, regardless of the size of the allocations: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622#55 The RIPE NCC will continue to issue /22 allocations, as per section 5.1: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-622#51 If you have any questions, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc@ripe.net>>. Regards, Saloumeh Ghasemi Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Sebastian Wiesinger 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> [2014-07-31 13:42]: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, > "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", > has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by > the RIPE NCC. I support this draft! Make it so. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Axel Pawlik 06 Aug '14

06 Aug '14

On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? Max, all, the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation provided by our members. This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national authority the member chooses. cheers, Axel

22 42

2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
by Marco Schmidt 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Extending the fulfilment of the IPv6 requirement to include any globally routable unicast IPv6 address block - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 29 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

Dear all, The RIPE NCC has the right to be contractually engaged with and to provide services to any legal entity, unless there are restrictions by law. Currently, Dutch law does not restrict our contractual engagement with, or provision of our services to, legal entities in Crimea. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27
by Lu 29 Jul '14

29 Jul '14

hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014年7月29日, at 下午6:00, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > > 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://www.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: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A(a)bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > >

1 0