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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Richard Hartmann 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 Somewhat off topic, but the links on that page point to i.e. [1] which redirects towards the generic search interface instead of displaying the expected documents. If RIPE NCC itself makes that honest mistake... This is part of what's being addressed on ncc-services-wg as of right now [2], [3]. I can't say if I am for or against the actual proposal, yet. Richard [1] https://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-589/ [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-September/0025… [3] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-September/0025…

2 1

2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Sep '13

26 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Documents ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", ripe-451, "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points" and ripe-233, "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 October 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

+1 ..... I support this proposal. Best Regards, Sandra Brown

5 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Randy Bush 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. and once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more +1

8 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Ian Johannesen 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Hi all, > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 October 2013. +1 for this proposal Best regards, Ian Johannesen

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Hi all. +1. I support this proposal. Best regards, Olaf

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Richard Hartmann 23 Sep '13

23 Sep '13

Dear all, I still support this proposal and have the slight hope that this will be the last time I will have to state this. Richard PS: For a unified diff between v2 and v3, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155…

16 37

2012-08
by James Blessing 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Support (I seem to deleted the original thread) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by Andy Davidson 22 Sep '13

22 Sep '13

Hi, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send > any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 18 > October 2013. Support. Andy

1 0

Fwd: Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
by David Farmer 20 Sep '13

20 Sep '13

Sorry this should have went to the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:21:31 -0500 From: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota To: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> CC: David Farmer <farmer(a)umn.edu> On 9/20/13 07:27 , Tore Anderson wrote: > Hi Sylvain, ... >> Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole >> market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in >> its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private >> sector and market. > > The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial > transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is > really 2007-08 you should be going after. You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection. He didn't say that he doesn't support the transfer market. He said he doesn't support your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal of justification of need for transfers. And, yes the transfer market is a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing justification of need for transfers. > On your second point, I would like to stress that 2013-03 version 3 does > ensure that the NCC's distribution of IPv4 address space stays the same > as right now: If you want your last /22, you'll have to use it for > making assignments; and if you're an IXP and want something larger than > a /24, you'll have to demonstrate the operational need for it. > > Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is > and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the > NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who > might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market. > This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the > other. > > If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from > receiving resources from the NCC, you are free to submit a proposal that > does just that. If you want to undo 2007-08 and thus retire the IPv4 > market, you are free to submit a proposal that does just that too. But > please leave those topics out of the 2013-03 thread. Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection. The RIPE NCC doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the justification of those resources. Or, the cost of dealing with the "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why you want to eliminate it. Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address them properly. Thank you. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

3 2