Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else? Cheers, Elisa -- Elisa Jasinska - AMS-IX NOC http://www.ams-ix.net/
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
I agree that it would be fairer to change the policy so that any conference organizer can apply for a PI IPv6 address block. They fill the role of a network operator for the attendees of a conference and this should be sufficient justification. IPv6 address space is NOT in short supply and we should not treat it as a scarce resource at this time. --Michael Dillon
Perhaps an even better, even more IPv6'ish solution would be something like Network Mobility (NEMO)? And, not to cross threads (reference BEHAVE WG) or start fires, but another option would be to use ULA addresses internally and translate (NAT66) them to PA space onsite as needed ... (Not saying either option is ideal / great ... but if the others options are to be treated as super-special or to do lots of extra work, the alternatives above sound more palatable) /TJ ... just an uninvolved observer :)
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elisa Jasinska Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:18 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
Cheers, Elisa
-- Elisa Jasinska - AMS-IX NOC http://www.ams-ix.net/
Elisa Jasinska wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
perhaps someone could phrase the general case? randy
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Elisa Jasinska wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
perhaps someone could phrase the general case?
I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be. Regards, Leo Vegoda
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
Elisa Jasinska wrote: perhaps someone could phrase the general case?
I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i. but i can see having a meeting net address (4 and 6) and asn set lying around for folk to use, with some way to grab/schedule the token for two weeks (one setup and one show). randy
Randy Bush wrote on 03-12-2008 07:59:
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
Elisa Jasinska wrote: perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i.
I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time. But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).
but i can see having a meeting net address (4 and 6) and asn set lying around for folk to use, with some way to grab/schedule the token for two weeks (one setup and one show).
randy
Andrei
Hi Andrei, On 03/12/2008 11:48, "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i.
I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time.
Sounds reasonable.
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request.
I don't know whether there is a legal problem with the RIPE NCC signing a contract with itself and paying itself fees. If not, the only problem is the evaluation of this request. But as your proposal is for the minimum size, a /48, it doesn't seem controversial as the only option for a smaller portion of the resource pool is none at all. Regards, Leo
Hello, Wouldn't it be an good option if the RIPE meetings becomes organized by another entity (for example a new organization (could be a "vereniging" or "stichting", I cannot remember the correct translations for both words)) that only works on creating the meetings with support from RIPE NCC (where needed). This would solve this issue and it would be easier I guess to offer options to talk if you want things to be changed within the RIPE NCC. However we need IPv6 asap (as IPv4 will not be available for new assignments within a few months/years). I know multiple networks that wait till they can get IPv6 PI space before offering IPv6 to their customers. And some companies need PI space just for the case they need to change from network (changing IPs is a lot of work that is not good for the competition between networks if you ask me). With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service www.streamservice.nl -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda Sent: woensdag 3 december 2008 12:19 To: Andrei Robachevsky; Randy Bush Cc: Elisa Jasinska; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork Hi Andrei, On 03/12/2008 11:48, "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i.
I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time.
Sounds reasonable.
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request.
I don't know whether there is a legal problem with the RIPE NCC signing a contract with itself and paying itself fees. If not, the only problem is the evaluation of this request. But as your proposal is for the minimum size, a /48, it doesn't seem controversial as the only option for a smaller portion of the resource pool is none at all. Regards, Leo
Hello Mark,
Wouldn't it be an good option if the RIPE meetings becomes organized by another entity (for example a new organization (could be a "vereniging" or "stichting", I cannot remember the correct translations for both words)) that only works on creating the meetings with support from RIPE NCC (where needed). This would solve this issue and it would be easier I guess to offer options to talk if you want things to be changed within the RIPE NCC.
The address policy working group is not the place where we should discuss how to organise RIPE meetings...
However we need IPv6 asap (as IPv4 will not be available for new assignments within a few months/years). I know multiple networks that wait till they can get IPv6 PI space before offering IPv6 to their customers. If they need IPv6 address space for their customers they need PA space anyway, which they can get right now. And some companies need PI space just for the case they need to change from network (changing IPs is a lot of work that is not good for the competition between networks if you ask me).
Those organisations do indeed 'need' IPv6 PI space. The policy proposal for IPv6 PI space is 2006-01. Once we get consensus on that proposal a lot of these problems will be solved. Then we only need a way for the NCC to assign resources to itself (like Remco proposed) to make everything work :) - Sander
Hi, On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Stream Service wrote:
However we need IPv6 asap (as IPv4 will not be available for new assignments within a few months/years). I know multiple networks that wait till they can get IPv6 PI space before offering IPv6 to their customers.
We are working on general IPv6 PI, but that's a different discussion thread. (Proposal 2006-01) Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Recently, RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 titled "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" was passed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Unfortunately, I believe not all aspects of its impact were made clear to the members. For example, in the section marked "Policy Documents to be Affected" there are 4 RIPE documents listed, but *not* listed is the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2008: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-420.html which was changed for 2009 via: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging.html The crucial change here is that AS numbers, IPv4 Provider Independent (PI) assignments and IPv6 PI assignments have been changed from a one-time score to a recurring score. Max, jokingly stated in April: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00244.... "May be we should return back old charging scheme when PI is billed yearly to LIRs? This will enforce return unused space, make contracts between LIRs and end-users, and so on just *automagically* ;)" Little did I know that this is what would come to pass - retroactively! Gert stated in Sept: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00537.... "PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the term "basically free" is appropriate. ... As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented. So, regarding the *charging* component of 2007-01: the AGM can do this without 2007-01, or they can decide to not do anything about it, even with 2007-01 reaching consensus." Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated that the charging algorithm would change. For example, one LIR I consult to was extra small in 2008 (1300Euro) and now is medium (2550Euro). They assigned 54 ASNs between 1997-2005 and no IPv4 or IPv6 address space at all. So since the charging algorithm is now a retroactive recurring score, their bill doubled suddenly. Was this totally understood by us? Thanks, Hank
Unfortunately, I believe not all aspects of its impact were made clear to the members. For example, in the section marked "Policy Documents to be Affected" there are 4 RIPE documents listed, but *not* listed is the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2008:
This is not the only sloppiness in RIPE recently. The process for applying for an AS number was recently changed to require every applicant to submit corporate registration papers, even if they are a long-time RIPE LIR. But the current ASN assignment policy here <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/asn-assignment.html> doesn't mention this. Nor does RIPE-406 <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-406.html> --Michael Dillon
Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated that the charging algorithm would change. For example, one LIR I consult to was extra small in 2008 (1300Euro) and now is medium (2550Euro). They assigned 54 ASNs between 1997-2005 and no IPv4 or IPv6 address space at all. So since the charging algorithm is now a retroactive recurring score, their bill doubled suddenly. I guess that's the risks involved with a pricing scheme change - they will just need to compensate by actually billing their customers for services they deliver ... I can still remember a time when ISPs in Germany would charge for any IPs they'd assign, even when they were from their (LIR) PA range ... and that was recurring fees, too ... for us, the pricing scheme change luckily doesn't result in additional cost, as we're pretty far down in the Medium range ... (though, from a percentage view, we did move up some from last year). Still, we are now preparing a letter to our customers informing them of a change in pricing, or rather, the new recurring pricing for usage of ASNs and IP-PI. The cost, when distributed evenly among all customers, is very resonable ... therefore I do not forsee too much of a fuss over it ...
Speaking of customers - what about customers who aren't an LIR's customers anymore? Can those PI assignments be "redirected" towards either RIPE or the new provider? Or the Enduser himself? Might be hard to come up out of the blue and send a bill over x€ in such a case ... -garry
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Recently, RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 titled "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" was passed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html
Hank, This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented. So, regarding the *charging* component of 2007-01: the AGM can do this without 2007-01, or they can decide to not do anything about it, even with 2007-01 reaching consensus."
I think the RIPE board wanted to ensure that there was a comprehensive solution in place to deal with the whole issue of provider independent number resources before trying to just change just the LIR billing component. You're possibly right - they may have been able to change the billing scheme without 2007-01, but that would have ended the board up with only a partial solution to a difficult problem.
Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated that the charging algorithm would change.
Yes, you missed the discussion. It took place at RIPE meetings, not on the mailing list, and for the reasons you specify: billing is outside the scope of apwg.
For example, one LIR I consult to was extra small in 2008 (1300Euro) and now is medium (2550Euro). They assigned 54 ASNs between 1997-2005 and no IPv4 or IPv6 address space at all. So since the charging algorithm is now a retroactive recurring score, their bill doubled suddenly.
Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html The LIR should pass on the cost to the end-users. I calculate the cost increase to be €23 per annum per ASN. Is that an unreasonable burden? Nick
At 11:05 AM 04-12-08 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Recently, RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01 titled "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC" was passed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html
Hank,
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others. ...
Maybe I missed the discussion in regards to 2007-01 where it was stated that the charging algorithm would change.
Yes, you missed the discussion. It took place at RIPE meetings, not on the mailing list, and for the reasons you specify: billing is outside the scope of apwg.
And we both know that not all 5000 RIPE members attend all the meetings. That is what protocols of meetings are for. Can you point me at the protocol of a meeting that mentions this will happen?
For example, one LIR I consult to was extra small in 2008 (1300Euro) and now is medium (2550Euro). They assigned 54 ASNs between 1997-2005 and no IPv4 or IPv6 address space at all. So since the charging algorithm is now a retroactive recurring score, their bill doubled suddenly.
Please see:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft2007-01-v4.html
The LIR should pass on the cost to the end-users. I calculate the cost increase to be 23 per annum per ASN. Is that an unreasonable burden?
Not at all - for new allocations. For ASNs allocated in 1997-2005 this particular LIR charged a one time fee to the customers since it knew the rules then as they had been for the past decade and didn't think they would change retroactively in 2008. So the LIR can't now go back to these 50 customers and tell them they need to pay 23Euro/yr. -Hank
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
I was always under the impression it was a combination of both. When was the last RIPE board election or charging scheme that was approved by mailing list? Nick
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land. Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself. The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes) voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
i stand, well sit, corrected. thanks. randy
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:37:37PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
Actually, this paragraph has to start with "every RIPE *NCC* member", aka "LIR". "RIPE" is "the community", and "everybody is free to participate". "RIPE NCC" is the organization in Amsterdam, and there is contracts, voting rights, and yearly fees to be paid. This is the formal part, with voting, and money transferred. I'm sorry for not being more precise there. The distinction is important. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, you wrote:
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am also a LIR contact for il.iucc and il.isoc and both did not receive an invitation and I did not see any drafts as discussed. Can you find out to which email address they sent those docs for il.iucc and il.isoc? -Hank
The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes) voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:29:40PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, you wrote:
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am also a LIR contact for il.iucc and il.isoc and both did not receive an invitation and I did not see any drafts as discussed. Can you find out to which email address they sent those docs for il.iucc and il.isoc?
The invitation goes to the ripe announcement list. One of them had the following headers...: Message-ID: <48E2639D.2040404@ripe.net> From: Axel Pawlik <agm@ripe.net> Reply-To: agm@ripe.net To: ncc-announce@ripe.net Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:36:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC General Meeting October 2008: Draft Agenda and Supporting I'm not exactly sure how that list is maintained, and what contacts are on there - but I would guess that the formal contacts for a LIR are put on that list. Maybe it's visible in the LIR portal? This is a bit out of the scope of my daily work - but there's always lir-help@ripe.net to help with such questions. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
The invitation goes to the ripe announcement list. One of them had the following headers...:
This message illustrates a disturbing trend with RIPE. People associated with RIPE, either the NCC or otherwise, seem to always assume that RIPE is right, and the LIR is wrong. Then they write an email that demonstrates to a careful reader, that RIPE is wrong or confused or too lazy to take the time to read the original email. --Michael Dillon
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:35:20PM -0000, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
The invitation goes to the ripe announcement list. One of them had the following headers...:
This message illustrates a disturbing trend with RIPE. People associated with RIPE, either the NCC or otherwise, seem to always assume that RIPE is right, and the LIR is wrong. Then they write an email that demonstrates to a careful reader, that RIPE is wrong or confused or too lazy to take the time to read the original email.
I have the feeling that you're unhappy with my e-mail. The intent of showing these headers was "that's the date, the message-ID and the subject of the mail, so maybe it's easier to track what had happened with this information". Not working for the RIPE NCC I can't say for sure how this mailing list is maintained - and from a LIR perspective, all I can say is that I've been on that list since we became a LIR, some 10 years ago. At that time I didn't know anything about RIPE, so I assume that the listed contacts get/got added automatically. (Oh, btw, maybe I should point out that you are also "part of RIPE", and thus the statement "... that RIPE is wrong and confused" could encompass your mail as well. And RIPE-as-the-whole-community is certainly too lazy to read e-mails. So what is your point?) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
(Oh, btw, maybe I should point out that you are also "part of RIPE",
I don't chair any WGs.
So what is your point?)
Hank said that he did not get any formal notice that the fee changes would be voted on at the meeting. Hank did not complain about any mailing lists. Hank did not complain about any working groups. Hank did complain that the people in the RIPE NCC, who are responsible for organizing the members meeting, made some mistakes. Mistakes happen, but in order to fix them we need to understand exactly what it was that did happen and why it happened that way. The notices to the RIPE announcement list are irrelevant in this case. --Michael Dillon
hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 03:39:41PM -0000, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
(Oh, btw, maybe I should point out that you are also "part of RIPE",
I don't chair any WGs.
"RIPE" is "all of us" - the *community*. The WG chairing thing means I get more work to do, and I'm entitled to wear a coloured badge at RIPE meetings -- but it doesn't make me any more (or less) "part of RIPE" than you are.
So what is your point?)
Hank said that he did not get any formal notice that the fee changes would be voted on at the meeting. Hank did not complain about any mailing lists. Hank did not complain about any working groups.
Hank did complain that the people in the RIPE NCC, who are responsible for organizing the members meeting, made some mistakes.
Hank complained that he did not receive the announcement mail. This does not necessarily mean that "the people in the RIPE NCC made some mistakes".
Mistakes happen, but in order to fix them we need to understand exactly what it was that did happen and why it happened that way.
I agree with this part...
The notices to the RIPE announcement list are irrelevant in this case.
To the contrary. Mail gets lost due to SPAM filtering or other reasons all day. Having Message-IDs enables people to figure out whether their mailserver has indeed seen the e-mail (and delivered it somewhere or dropped it), or not. Your assumption seems to be "the RIPE NCC is responsible for all evil in the world". You might want to reconsider this position. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Your assumption seems to be "the RIPE NCC is responsible for all evil in the world". You might want to reconsider this position.
No that is NOT my assumption. But I do see a certain arrogance on the part of RIPE WG chairs, and RIPE NCC staff. We're all human and make mistakes once in a while, but when you take responsibility for doing a particular job that serves other people, you have to be seen to be helpful. In any case, I did make some wrong assumptions from your first email because you did not explain that it could be a SPAM filter issue, and that looking for the announcement email would be a good check to see if filtering was taking place. Your idea was a good one although I would hope that the RIPE NCC staff do check to see whether they sent out the LIR emails that Hank claims he did not receieve. --Michael Dillon
At 04:51 PM 04-12-08 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hank complained that he did not receive the announcement mail. This does not necessarily mean that "the people in the RIPE NCC made some mistakes".
Mistakes happen, but in order to fix them we need to understand exactly what it was that did happen and why it happened that way.
I agree with this part...
The notices to the RIPE announcement list are irrelevant in this case.
To the contrary. Mail gets lost due to SPAM filtering or other reasons all day. Having Message-IDs enables people to figure out whether their mailserver has indeed seen the e-mail (and delivered it somewhere or dropped it), or not.
Can someone from RIPE NCC make a test posting to the ncc-announcements list to see if I get it? Thanks, Hank
Michael and all, Is this suppose to be surprising? After all isn't this the attitude of what "Authoritative" is supposed to be? Aren't all RIR's always right, and therefore omnipotent? How could anyone DARE question even in the slightest way, on any issue, or response to a question, unless they were irreverent, irresponsible, disrespectful, disruptive, or even insane? >:) michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
The invitation goes to the ripe announcement list. One of them had the following headers...:
This message illustrates a disturbing trend with RIPE. People associated with RIPE, either the NCC or otherwise, seem to always assume that RIPE is right, and the LIR is wrong. Then they write an email that demonstrates to a careful reader, that RIPE is wrong or confused or too lazy to take the time to read the original email.
--Michael Dillon
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I am also a LIR contact for il.iucc and il.isoc and both did not receive an invitation and I did not see any drafts as discussed. Can you find out to which email address they sent those docs for il.iucc and il.isoc?
Surely you are not saying that RIPE buries plans in a locked filing cabinet labeled "Beware of the Leopard" in a disused toilet in a basement with no stairs ? No, never. Many of us do not have personal experience of this, do we ? Peter
At 02:29 PM 04-12-08 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, you wrote:
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am also a LIR contact for il.iucc and il.isoc and both did not receive an invitation and I did not see any drafts as discussed. Can you find out to which email address they sent those docs for il.iucc and il.isoc?
Just to let everyone know that checking mail logs shows that the AGM email did indeed arrive at my mailbox for il.iucc and at the LIR rep for il.isoc. -Hank
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others. excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes) voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
The problem is that RIPE NCC can't legally retroactively charge feed for something that was, at the time of assignment, covered by a one-time fee. It also raises serious (EU) anti-trust questions. And no, having a "democratic" AGM vote does not make it OK to retroactively disadvantage the members who voted against it or did not vote. -- Andre Oppermann Internet Business Solutions AG Zürich, Switzerland
At 12:37 PM 04-12-08 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings. Not at just one, but several. The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
excuse? i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
I reviewed the draft agenda: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.... but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from the AGM. I did find this: http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make such a change.
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the announcement.
The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes) voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
I wouldn't call 52 out of 6000 LIRs a substantial majority. -Hank
Hi Hank, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:46:17PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide on the charging scheme. We can discuss things (which we did, here and in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
I reviewed the draft agenda: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.... but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from the AGM.
2007-01 was only briefly covered on the last RIPE meeting's APWG time - it had already passed last call. So all I did was summarize the results, and tell people that they should attend the AGM because there was a new charging scheme to be decided upon. The minutes for this meeting are not yet done. Need to check with the minute taker where they got stuck (but since the meeting was quite packed, it is a *lot* work to write these, even with audio recording available).
I did find this: http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make such a change.
Note that I'm not a lawyer - but as far as I understand, this is how the articles of the NCC are set up. The majority of the LIRs (+proxy votes) that attend the AGM vote for the board members and decide on the charging scheme (and possible changes to the articles). I could now argue "the remaining LIRs could have sent proxy votes" and then you can answer "we haven't been invited" - we're turning in a circle, and this is not a good situation and needs to be sorted out.
Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme. It was sent out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the announcement.
I'm sorry if I came across as "arrogant" here. That wasn't my intention - I really thought that all LIRs would receive these invitations, and I think the best way to sort this out might be to ask lir-help@ripe.net to look into their records - and depending on the outcome, it might be a good idea to make sure that AGM invitations are definitely distributed to the listed admin-c and tech-c contacts for a LIR. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Gert Doering wrote:
I did find this: http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make such a change.
Note that I'm not a lawyer - but as far as I understand, this is how the articles of the NCC are set up. The majority of the LIRs (+proxy votes) that attend the AGM vote for the board members and decide on the charging scheme (and possible changes to the articles).
I could now argue "the remaining LIRs could have sent proxy votes" and then you can answer "we haven't been invited" - we're turning in a circle, and this is not a good situation and needs to be sorted out.
This troubles me. Imagine RBN setting up 40-50 extra-small LIRs all for under 200-300KEuro and then manipulating the RIPE voting to favor almost any agenda they may have. Having such a criticial infrastructure such as RIPE being "adjusted" by just 52 votes (less than 1% of its members) is sheer madness IMHO. I would have hoped that the RIPE NCC would address this issue and encourage members to come and vote - give a free 8GB DOK if that is what is needed. :-)
I'm sorry if I came across as "arrogant" here. That wasn't my intention - I really thought that all LIRs would receive these invitations, and I think the best way to sort this out might be to ask lir-help@ripe.net to look into their records - and depending on the outcome, it might be a good idea to make sure that AGM invitations are definitely distributed to the listed admin-c and tech-c contacts for a LIR.
Gert, I don't think you came across arrogant at all. But in addition to distributing the AGM invites to not just ncc-announce but to admin-c and tech-c as you suggest, I would suggest we somehow get a larger pool of LIRs involved to vote - otherwise we may wake up in the near future to some very strange new policies. -Hank
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert Doering said:
Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make such a change.
Note that I'm not a lawyer - but as far as I understand, this is how the articles of the NCC are set up. The majority of the LIRs (+proxy votes) that attend the AGM vote for the board members and decide on the charging scheme (and possible changes to the articles).
But what is the quorum for the meeting? Is it really as small as under 1%? If the meeting isn't quorate, its decisions are invalid. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 THUS - a Cable and Wireless business
On Dec 3, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Stream Service wrote:
Hello,
Wouldn't it be an good option if the RIPE meetings becomes organized by another entity (for example a new organization (could be a "vereniging" or "stichting", I cannot remember the correct translations for both words)) that only works on creating the meetings with support from RIPE NCC (where needed). This would solve this issue and it would be easier I guess to offer options to talk if you want things to be changed within the RIPE NCC.
Yeah and make sure the entity is registered outside of the NCC service region so any conflict of interest can be avoided :) No really, don't you think this goes a bit too far ? Like Gert already posted, Remco made a suggestion which seems to be far and straightforward and if we get stuck in the 'NCC can't sign with themselves' I'm perfectly happy to have a chat with our sponsoring dept and run the request via our LIR so there is no need for the NCC to sign a direct enduser agreement. MarcoH
...
Yeah and make sure the entity is registered outside of the NCC service region so any conflict of interest can be avoided :)
No really, don't you think this goes a bit too far ? Like Gert already posted, Remco made a suggestion which seems to be far and straightforward and if we get stuck in the 'NCC can't sign with themselves' I'm perfectly happy to have a chat with our sponsoring dept and run the request via our LIR so there is no need for the NCC to sign a direct enduser agreement.
I support such a pragmatic approach instead of forming new entities. You never get rid of those, you know :-) Andreas
On 3 Dec 2008, at 10:48, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).
Does "The RIPE Community" exist as a legal entity ? Can the community hold the meeting resources and agree to hold a contract with the NCC ? Andy
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 3 Dec 2008, at 10:48, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).
Does "The RIPE Community" exist as a legal entity ? Can the community hold the meeting resources and agree to hold a contract with the NCC ?
No, and No. That is one of the reasons that back in 1992 the 'RIPE Community' decided to create the RIPE NCC.
Andy
Rob
Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
I think the RIPE meeting network meets the requirement for multihoming, since it is multihomed, both topologically and in time.
But meeting the "Contractual requirements" is more difficult, since in a way that will require the RIPE NCC to have a contract with ourselves and to evaluate our own request. Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be the one proposed by Remco back in November (to establish a policy that lets the NCC file a request in the ordinary way).
From your email of yesterday, it seems like #2 is definitely a candidate
Andrei, Maybe you could explain what sort of problems you're having with address space requests? Is it that: 1. the ripe ncc seems to have no official means of assigning address space to itself, 1a. due to political neutrality requirements, the ripe ncc cannot engage the services of a third party LIR, 2. engaging in a contract with itself under the terms of 2007-01 will cause a bureaucratic singularity to occur, and therefore it should not be attempted, 3. the registration department at ripe applies the same rules to the rest of the ncc that they apply to everyone else, and because 2006-01 isn't policy yet, the meeting organisation department cannot get ipv6 pi, or 4. something else. problem. I'd suspect #1a too, although not so much #1. #3 will be solved with 2006-01. #1 and #2 can only be solved with a policy change. #1a could be solved by a policy change to create a pseudo LIR (eu.ripencc), if there is a requirement to push the ripe ncc's numbering requirements through a LIR. Please explain more. There's a lot of discussion going on about this topic, but it's just not clear what problem you're trying to solve, other than the immediate technical requirement to get ipv6 PI space for ripe meetings. Nick
Nick, Nick Hilliard wrote on 04-12-2008 12:59: [...]
Please explain more. There's a lot of discussion going on about this topic, but it's just not clear what problem you're trying to solve, other than the immediate technical requirement to get ipv6 PI space for ripe meetings.
That is exactly the problem we are trying to solve. To do that it appears we need #1, 2 and 3 sorted out as you rightly noted.
Nick
Andrei
Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
That is exactly the problem we are trying to solve. To do that it appears we need #1, 2 and 3 sorted out as you rightly noted.
Ok, good, so let's say for the sake of argument that 2006-01 is passed as policy and PI IPv6 space becomes available, and that the RIPE NCC applies for and is assigned a /48 for internal infrastructural needs - i.e. replacing the PA /48 currently assigned for the purpose by SARA. If the meetings organisation people within the RIPE NCC then apply for a separate /48 PI for use for RIPE meetings, will the registration services department then be in a position to assign a separate /48 PI block for meetings under existing assignment guidelines? More generally, if Organisation X already holds IPv6 space, whether PA or PI, and where: 1. they are not using the entire address block for their infrastructural needs, 2. they intend to organise an event which requires a separate IPv6 address block for routing purposes, 3. the total number of /64s required for both their normal infrastructural needs and their event requirements does not exceed their existing ipv6 assignment 4. that assignment is either for a once-off or a periodically recurring meeting then in this situation, would the RIPE NCC registration department be happy to assign an ipv6 address block for that purpose? My take on this is probably not. But it would be helpful to get a formal opinion from this from the RIPE NCC. two notes: - I've excluded ipv4 and asns from this position, because I think that they can probably be assigned under existing guidelines: ASNs because of the multihoming requirements if the organisation does not already hold an ASN, and IPv4 because end-users are assigned on the basis of numerical requirement for day-to-day needs, and if they organise a temporary event, then that numerical requirement will be exceeded. - I can see no good reason that RIPE should receive special treatment in terms of any address assignment requirements and lots of reasons that they shouldn't. If there is a requirement for RIPE to receive a /48 pi block for meetings, then that option should be considered for all end-users in the RIPE service region. Nick
Dear Nick, Please see RIPE NCC Registration Services' answer to your questions ragarding proposal 2006-01 below:
More generally, if Organisation X already holds IPv6 space, whether PA or PI, and where:
1. they are not using the entire address block for their infrastructural needs, 2. they intend to organise an event which requires a separate IPv6 address block for routing purposes, 3. the total number of /64s required for both their normal infrastructural needs and their event requirements does not exceed their existing ipv6 assignment 4. that assignment is either for a once-off or a periodically recurring meeting
then in this situation, would the RIPE NCC registration department be happy to assign an ipv6 address block for that purpose? My take on this is probably not. But it would be helpful to get a formal opinion from this from the RIPE NCC.
The current version of proposal 2006-01 contains the provisions for assigning more than a single /48 to an organisation:
Additional assignments may also be made when there is a technical need demanding this or usage justified. When possible, these further assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
Only very large networks would qualify for multiple /48 subnets under the "usage justified" provision. However, networks that have multiple unconnected end-sites and intend to originate the prefixes from different ASNs could qualify under the "technical need" criterion. So an organisation that has received a prefix for its infrastructure could still qualify for an additional assignment for organising a meeting, although this would depend on the details of their network setup. In the specific case of the RIPE NCC organising the RIPE meeting, the issue of the contractual relationship would have to be resolved first. Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC Policy Implementation Co-ordinator
Randy Bush wrote:
Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 02/12/2008 11:48, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I can only second Niels here. While organizing conferences and events with network infrastructure myself, I can tell that it is a hassle to re-arrange temporary PI every time... so I do see the incentive. But why should the NCC be a special case and no one else?
Elisa Jasinska wrote: perhaps someone could phrase the general case? I thought 2006-01 is the general case. If it's not, I'd appreciate an explanation of why it cannot be.
i suspect that the ncc, perhaps andrei, would be the one to answer this, not i.
but i can see having a meeting net address (4 and 6) and asn set lying around for folk to use, with some way to grab/schedule the token for two weeks (one setup and one show).
That could work, generally the meetings are all aligned on the calendar anyway so that they don't collide. Only thing then, just like temporary space, is that you will have to get route filters updated (as your transit will be different, but with a moving network those things change anyway) etc etc etc. But all those problems should be doable. The question then still is, what is the difference between this special /48 or a /48 that one can get from the upstream provider? (Except for the first effectively being PI) As the RIPE NCC/"Meeting Organizer" is so intent on having this special prefix, I think it is up to them to properly define first what all the reasoning they have what and why, then we can discuss everything further. Greets, Jeroen
Hi, On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:52:20PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The question then still is, what is the difference between this special /48 or a /48 that one can get from the upstream provider? (Except for the first effectively being PI)
As the RIPE NCC/"Meeting Organizer" is so intent on having this special prefix, I think it is up to them to properly define first what all the reasoning they have what and why, then we can discuss everything further.
Jeroen, please calm down a bit. Right now, there is no PI. If 2006-01 goes through (which I see pretty good chances for, given that there are mainly textual details left, not unsolvable fundamental issues), PI can be used for the meeting network. Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a problem with neutrality. Remco has made a suggestion how to tackle *this*, and I see this as the way forward. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a problem with neutrality.
We aren't lawyers. Why are you asking us to solve legal problems. Any lawyer will tell you that this is simple. Incorporate an entity separate from the NCC that will organize meetings. It can have the same board of directors as the NCC, or some other arrangement if you wish. This organization can then sign contracts with the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC no longer has to worry about RIPE meetings because RIPE now deals with a separate organization to hold the meetings. --Michael Dillon
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 15:58 +0000, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a problem with neutrality.
We aren't lawyers. Why are you asking us to solve legal problems. Any lawyer will tell you that this is simple. Incorporate an entity separate from the NCC that will organize meetings. It can have the same board of directors as the NCC, or some other arrangement if you wish. This organization can then sign contracts with the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC no longer has to worry about RIPE meetings because RIPE now deals with a separate organization to hold the meetings.
I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings. Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request for resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea of incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder if I'm about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*) -- Shane (*) Perhaps the rabbit is talking about the state of his IPv6 deployments though...
Hello Shane,
I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings.
Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt
Thank you for the reference.
The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request for resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea of incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder if I'm about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*) :-)
All the paperwork needs to be correct though, so we need an official way to give the NCC resources. Remco van Mook suggested a solution (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00745....) and offered to try to write a formal policy proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00823....). I think this is the best way forward and we should give Remco some time to work on that policy proposal. Sander
Hi folks, One other way that this could be handled is to ask one of the other RIRs to assess the resource request. I'm trying to remember how we did this in the past with IPv4, am sure Daniel remembers, but I think we asked IANA to check the assignment. Any of the other RIRs will have Hostmasters or Resource Analysts that are highly familiar with the RIPE area policies. I would advise against making anything more cumbersome than it needs to be. Am sure the other RIRs have the same issue and a simple policy of review by another RIR would solve the issue for all. John On 08/12/2008 05:21, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hello Shane,
I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings.
Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt
Thank you for the reference.
The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request for resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea of incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder if I'm about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*) :-)
All the paperwork needs to be correct though, so we need an official way to give the NCC resources. Remco van Mook suggested a solution (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00745.... tml) and offered to try to write a formal policy proposal (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00823.... tml).
I think this is the best way forward and we should give Remco some time to work on that policy proposal. Sander
Gert Doering wrote: [...]
Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a problem with neutrality.
Remco has made a suggestion how to tackle *this*, and I see this as the way forward.
This is at least *one* (very good!) suggestion. I can think about another equally simple (and maybe more efficient) one: Submit the request to a different RIR for review and approval :-)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
Wilfried
Which leaves the problem of "an entity assigning to itself, and doing a contract with itself" - which can be seen as a problem with neutrality.
Remco has made a suggestion how to tackle *this*, and I see this as
Hi Wilfried, That thought also crossed my mind, and while it sounds more elegant and efficient it would also require a policy change in another RIR :-) I'll try to do a formal policy proposal somewhere in the following weeks. Best, Remco (and it'll give that hat we both have something to do) -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: donderdag 4 december 2008 19:24 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork Gert Doering wrote: [...] the
way forward.
This is at least *one* (very good!) suggestion. I can think about another equally simple (and maybe more efficient) one: Submit the request to a different RIR for review and approval :-)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
Wilfried This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
participants (25)
-
Alex Le Heux -
Andre Oppermann -
Andreas Schachtner -
Andrei Robachevsky -
Andy Davidson -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Elisa Jasinska -
Garry Glendown -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Jeroen Massar -
John L. Crain -
Leo Vegoda -
Marco Hogewoning -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Galbavy -
Randy Bush -
Remco van Mook -
Rob Blokzijl -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr -
Stream Service -
TJ -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet