Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase. Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 29 March 2012 12:21, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
I thought I saw a lot of "we support this" emails (mostly from IX operators), if not then I'll start with "I support this policy" J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Hi, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:29:16PM +0100, boggits wrote:
I thought I saw a lot of "we support this" emails (mostly from IX operators), if not then I'll start with "I support this policy"
Those were all in the initial discussion phase. I don't need a full repetition of all these, but a few statements of position in the review phase *are* helpful, to see whether people are still agreeing, even if the text has changed somewhat between v1.0 and v3.0 :-) By definition, in "Last Call", we have "silence is consent" but that's not true for the earlier phases. Thanks for your voice ;-) 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
hi! On 03/29/2012 02:36 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
repetition of all these, but a few statements of position in the review phase *are* helpful, to see whether people are still agreeing, even if the
well then, i still do not agree and am still convinced every requester had to be treated equal, without anyone being more equal than others. regards, Chris
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Those were all in the initial discussion phase. I don't need a full repetition of all these, but a few statements of position in the review phase *are* helpful, to see whether people are still agreeing, even if the text has changed somewhat between v1.0 and v3.0 :-)
I'm ok with the proposal. Even "new" IXPs will be connecting existing SPs that already have IPv4 legacy space. Other new organisations will have to build ipv6-only networks eventually anyway. Withholding a /16 from those is not going to have a noticeable impact on the Internet. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 3/29/12 3:08 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:36:16PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Those were all in the initial discussion phase. I don't need a full repetition of all these, but a few statements of position in the review phase *are* helpful, to see whether people are still agreeing, even if the text has changed somewhat between v1.0 and v3.0 :-)
I'm ok with the proposal.
Even "new" IXPs will be connecting existing SPs that already have IPv4 legacy space. Other new organisations will have to build ipv6-only networks eventually anyway. Withholding a /16 from those is not going to have a noticeable impact on the Internet.
+1 Jan
*cry*
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
this is one of those situations ... trying to be a good netizen, even checking and commenting on proposals which i only have a personal opinion of, no real professional one since i don't deal with IXPs so much lately in this case (unfortunately) - but keeping track of which ones i've already said something to, and in which review phase seems to be impossible for an old brain. Some much more intelligent person than me really should come up with a better PDP or some supporting tools to the PDP process beyond the mailinglist archive. But i sensed some opposition to some "informal voting tool" on drafts over the past years :-( Having said that: I still support this proposal ( i think i supported it in earlier phases ) Reasoning: Even though i also think (like some others) that there shouldn't be "special people/companies/etc.", i deem IXPs important enough for the development of the internet in a whole to justify an exception. Also, one less /16 in the pool isn't going to end the world (OTOH it probably would end the IPv4 world one week earlier, but that would be a good thing actually) I think, the community and the NCC can make sure that this "special policy" cannot be abused by fake IXPs or so. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect
I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future growth of the Internet. Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
Hi everyone, I support this policy as well. Same objections as Remco on this topic. Have a nice day/weekend! Best regards, Florian EuroTransit GmbH global IP transit and carrier services Chief Technical Officer Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg fon: +49 40 41354058 fax: +49 40 41354893 E-Mail: florian.hibler@euro-transit.net Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net EuroTransit GmbH CEO: Andy Fischer Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 VAT Number: DE219346766 Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote:
I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future growth of the Internet.
Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA
remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB
EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom
On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
Hi everyone, sorry had too less coffee this morning ;) I wanted to say, that I agree with Remco. Best regards, Florian EuroTransit GmbH global IP transit and carrier services Chief Technical Officer Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg fon: +49 40 41354058 fax: +49 40 41354893 E-Mail: florian.hibler@euro-transit.net Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net EuroTransit GmbH CEO: Andy Fischer Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 VAT Number: DE219346766 Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you. On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Florian Hibler - EuroTransit GmbH wrote:
Hi everyone, I support this policy as well.
Same objections as Remco on this topic.
Have a nice day/weekend!
Best regards, Florian
EuroTransit GmbH global IP transit and carrier services Chief Technical Officer
Alsterufer 30, D-20354 Hamburg fon: +49 40 41354058 fax: +49 40 41354893 E-Mail: florian.hibler@euro-transit.net Internet: http://www.euro-transit.net
EuroTransit GmbH CEO: Andy Fischer Commercial Registry: Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 107158 VAT Number: DE219346766 Registered Office: Hamburg, Germany
Notice: This transmittal and/or attachments may be privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Thank you.
On Mar 29, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote:
I support this policy. Reserving the space has no significant impact on IPv4 runout globally but will enable future exchange platforms to be established and existing ones to expand, which is vital for the future growth of the Internet.
Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA
remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB
EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom
On 29-03-12 13:21, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
I support this policy; it is crucial to ensure that new IXPs can be established in the future. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Thornton Director, PRT Systems Ltd.
On 29.03.2012 13:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
perhaps the obligatory "I support this proposal" only happened on the Euro-IX mailing list, but I'm pretty sure I've seen these _somewhere_. Hence once again: safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space is an excellent idea. -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net
On 30 Mar 2012, at 21:40, Arnold Nipper wrote:
perhaps the obligatory "I support this proposal" only happened on the Euro-IX mailing list, but I'm pretty sure I've seen these _somewhere_.
Hi, Arnold Nope, there was lots on ap-wg too (the correct place for policy development) -- but in any case, I appreciated the renewed support during the Review Phase - thank you again. Andy
Dear All, On 29 mrt. 2012, at 13:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it.
I'd like 2011-05 to become policy. Kind regards, Job
Hi all,
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it.
I would like to show my support for 2011-05. This proposal should become a policy from my point of view -- Alex
Gert, the Euro-IX Board discussed this yesterday and we as an organisation strongly support this proposal! Best regards, - kurtis - On 29 mar 2012, at 13:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Best regards, - kurtis -
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Lindqvist Kurt Erik <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>wrote:
Gert,
the Euro-IX Board discussed this yesterday and we as an organisation strongly support this proposal!
Best regards,
- kurtis -
Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. Perhaps this is the most important. Best, Géza
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. Perhaps this is the most important.
What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through their individual members? rgds, Sascha Luck
hi! On 04/02/2012 01:13 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. Perhaps this is the most important.
What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through their individual members?
ripe represents the community - the plenum being the sum of the individual persons. identifying a commercial IXP syndication as 'the most important' player regarding the question whether IXPs should be treated special regarding commons of the community is in my eyes - errr - "amazing" :) regards, Chris
Hi, On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:13:03PM +0100, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
Good to hear that the working group affected is supporting the proposal. Perhaps this is the most important.
What is the current status of organisations wrt the PDP? I remember a shitstorm about that in a different context (2007-01?). IIRC the outcome was that organisations don't get a say except through their individual members?
Technically, only individials speak up regarding policy developments. Nevertheless, for policy proposals involving other RIPE working groups (be it DNS for "addresses for anycasting" or EIX for this one), it's certainly welcome if the underlying questions are discussed in the respective working group as well, and members from there come here to state their opinion based on that discussion - especially given that these other working groups might have a better understanding of the technical issues involved. I think for IXPs, we can do quite well :-) - but for DNS related proposals, we had a few statements here where it was helpful to be able to draw on the wisdom of the DNS WG... 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Apr 2, 2012 11:36 AM, "Lindqvist Kurt Erik"
the Euro-IX Board discussed this yesterday and we as an organisation strongly support this proposal!
Perhaps getting the individual members to post their support on the list would speed the process J
I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital for the future of the internet. Christian Kaufmann Akamai Technologies On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Dear working group, it looks like my mail from last week did not arrived on this list. I strongly support this proposal becoming a policy. Best regards -- Alex On Apr 2, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital for the future of the internet.
Christian Kaufmann Akamai Technologies
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
* Christian Kaufmann:
I support this proposal, as new IXs and the extension of existing ones are vital for the future of the internet.
Regarding the "extension" aspect---does the proposed policy support multiple disparate peering LANs for a single host organization? To me, the wording sugggests "no", but it's somewhat ambiguous.
We (Norwegian Internet eXchange, NIX) support this proposal! --Kjetil Otter Olsen, USIT/UiO and NIX Den 29.03.2012 13:21, skrev Gert Doering:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, NIX.CZ supports this proposal. Best regards __________________________________ NIX.CZ z.s.p.o. Petr Jiran - Technical Manager Vinohradska 184, 130 52 Praha Czech Republic e-m@il: pj@nix.cz tel: +420246083470 dw: +420246083471 http://www.nix.cz Dne 29.3.2012 13:21, Gert Doering napsal(a):
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk95n0UACgkQdUnwxWgiigfH3ACeLDzSAblLn+xxTDDIHB7YZRq3 6bkAnAuV99f32iXmRZXrLD/UWPIwpZW5 =VRFZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Gert, FranceIX supports this policy. Regards. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 13:21, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, BNIX (the Belgian National Internet eXchange) supports this proposal. Jan. 2012/3/29 Gert Doering <gert@space.net>:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
thanks,
Gert Doering, APWG chair
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 3.0) today.
Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are:
-a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed section 5.6.2
As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process.
The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published
You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05
and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 3 April 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 29/03/12 12:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
Gert LINX supports this policy. Regards John -- John Souter, CEO, London Internet Exchange Ltd Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA. Registered 3137929 in England. Mobile: +44-7711-492389 https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:john@linx.net
On 29/03/12 12:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from")
after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase.
Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase.
Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now.
Gert, PLIX supports this policy as well. regards, -- Sylwester Biernacki, CEO mail: s.biernacki@plix.pl mobile: +48 609 602 526 web: http://www.plix.pl/ PLIX Ltd., Aleje Jerozolimskie 65/79 00-697 Warsaw NIP/VAT-ID: PL7010109699
participants (23)
-
Alexander Leefmann -
Andy Davidson -
Arnold Nipper -
boggits -
Chris -
chrish＠consol.net
-
Christian Kaufmann -
Florian Hibler - EuroTransit GmbH -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Jan Torreele -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Job Snijders -
John Souter -
Jérôme Fleury -
Kjetil Otter Olsen -
Lindqvist Kurt Erik -
Paul Thornton -
Petr Jiran -
Remco Van Mook -
Sascha Lenz -
Sascha Luck -
Sylwester Biernacki -
Turchanyi Geza