On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Dear Working Group, On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:31:21PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:

...

The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25 August 2011.

You can find the full proposal at:

    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01

This proposal is doing another round of 4-week review phase because of a distinct lack of feedback on it (one question, but no support / objection comments).

There currently is a lack of policy at IANA/ICANN regarding distribution of "smaller than a /8" address blocks that happen to show up in the IANA pool - which means that even if such blocks should be found, IANA cannot distribute them to the RIRs.  Which those of you that still use IPv4 might then be interested in receiving...

This being a global policy, we don't do word smithing on it (the text should be the same in all regions), so your choice is easy: support, or objection.

I can't atm see anything to pick on, the text seem quite stright forward so supported from here. -- Roger Jorgensen           | rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no

Dear all, There appears to be some confusion about in what capacity I send email to the address policy mailing list. While I thought this was obvious, all opinions, policy proposals, support for proposals or lack thereof, mutterings and ramblings I state here are my own and from a personal capacity, unless explicitly stated otherwise. To prevent any further confusion, I'll try to include this in any future postings - please forgive me the extra time you'll spend reading them. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Remco On 02-08-11 10:13, "Remco Van Mook" <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:

I support this proposal because there's an obvious need for it - what's not exactly clear to me however is if current IANA inventory (IIRC there was more there than just /8s) will be put into that same 'recovered' pool so no addresses get stuck (other than some scraps < /24).

Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, Europe

remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB

EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom

On 01-08-11 13:20, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:

...

Dear Working Group,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:31:21PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote:

...

The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25 August 2011.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01

This proposal is doing another round of 4-week review phase because of a distinct lack of feedback on it (one question, but no support / objection comments).

There currently is a lack of policy at IANA/ICANN regarding distribution of "smaller than a /8" address blocks that happen to show up in the IANA pool - which means that even if such blocks should be found, IANA cannot distribute them to the RIRs. Which those of you that still use IPv4 might then be interested in receiving...

This being a global policy, we don't do word smithing on it (the text should be the same in all regions), so your choice is easy: support, or objection.

Taking off the WG chair's hat, I think this is necessary housekeeping, and should be done -> *support* (this implies that I don't get to decide whether we have consensus on this one, but Sander will be the neutral WG chair that oversees the process).

Putting the hat back on, I welcome your comments!

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

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 2 Aug 2011, at 13:05, Rob Evans wrote:

Really? Please folk, let us not get into the situation that some other RIRs are in where those involved feel restricted in voicing their opinions.

+1

In my opinion, anyway. :)

Is that your personal opinion Rob? Or is that your WG Chair opinion? Or are you wearing your Programme Committee member hat? :-) Sorry: couldn't resist... jim (no hats) :-)

...

There appears to be some confusion about in what capacity I send email to the address policy mailing list.

Really? Please folk, let us not get into the situation that some other RIRs are in where those involved feel restricted in voicing their opinions.

it was my fault, too used to other regions with different religions. i agree and apologize. randy

João Damas wrote:

IMHO[1] I think this better that what we have now in that it allows us to make use of the last bits of address space and any that may become available later on.

I agree, and thus I support the proposed policy.

Probably not going to make a huge difference in extending IPv4's life but sure stops people complaining about the IANA holding numbers that could be put to use on the Internet.

Checking the text again, I do see some aspects that may be ambiguous and/or require clarification: Section 1.0, after bullet point 2, <quote> The Recovered IPv4 Pool will stay inactive until the first RIR has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space. </quote> As the different regions do have, or are still discussing, various (micro-)policies to reserve blocks or to set aside blocks for specific purposes, the term "inventory" either needs clarification/definition or there should be an explanation which part(s) of the RIR's IPv4 address space is considered to belong to the "inventory". My personal proposal would be to clearly state that *all* currently unused space in an RIR is considered its "inventory". As an aside, and given the fact that there is no specification about the fate of returned address blocks within a Region, what is expected to happen, when and if no RIR is below the /9 threshold any longer? Will the RIP (Recovered IPv4 Pool :-) ) be declared inactive again, or not? I do understand that this is not very likely. Regarding timelines: It is not clear to me, whether the 1st round of redistribution happens "immediately" after declaring the RIP active, and thereafter will be synched to the March1/Sept1 schedule? Alternatively, the 1st round may be executed at the next scheduled date. My personal preference here would be to act "immediately" and then take up the schedule, with the effect of potentially not having anything to dish out for the next round(s) and thus skip the next scheduled date(s) . However, this approach may run against the intention(?) of proposing a fixed 6m schedule (in order to accumulate a reasonably big RIP?). Maybe the authors could explain the rationale for the particular schedule?

As a matter of local implementation, if this policy is adopted, I would like to request that the RIPE NCC issue public statements to its members each time this policy is exercised, whether it gets new addresses in the period or not.

Regarding the Impact Analysis: Is there any exisiting or proposed policy in our region that would be impacted or even invalidated by this proposal becoming Global Policy?

Joao

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/IMHO

Thanks for the [1] :-) , Wilfried.

On 28 Jul 2011, at 12:31, Emilio Madaio wrote:

...

Dear Colleagues,

The Review Period for the proposal 2011-01 has been extended until 25 August 2011.

You can find the full proposal at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-01

We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.

Regards,

Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

Hi Wilfried, At 02:49 09-08-2011, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

Checking the text again, I do see some aspects that may be ambiguous and/or require clarification:

Please note that the status of GPP-IPv4-2011 in other regions is as follows: AfriNIC: In Last Call APNIC: Endorsed by APNIC EC ARIN: To be discussed at its next Public Policy Meeting LACNIC: In last comments period

Section 1.0, after bullet point 2, <quote> The Recovered IPv4 Pool will stay inactive until the first RIR has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space. </quote>

As the different regions do have, or are still discussing, various (micro-)policies to reserve blocks or to set aside blocks for specific purposes, the term "inventory" either needs clarification/definition or there should be an explanation which part(s) of the RIR's IPv4 address space is considered to belong to the "inventory".

My personal proposal would be to clearly state that *all* currently unused space in an RIR is considered its "inventory".

The intent is to cover IPv4 address space that is not allocated or assigned, including any address blocks that have been set aside for specific purposes.

As an aside, and given the fact that there is no specification about the fate of returned address blocks within a Region, what is expected to happen, when and if no RIR is below the /9 threshold any longer? Will the RIP (Recovered IPv4 Pool :-) ) be declared inactive again, or not? I do understand that this is not very likely.

The objective is to keep the proposal simple. As such, unlikely events are not taken into account.

Regarding timelines:

It is not clear to me, whether the 1st round of redistribution happens "immediately" after declaring the RIP active, and thereafter will be synched to the March1/Sept1 schedule? Alternatively, the 1st round may be executed at the next scheduled date.

My personal preference here would be to act "immediately" and then take up the schedule, with the effect of potentially not having anything to dish out for the next round(s) and thus skip the next scheduled date(s) .

However, this approach may run against the intention(?) of proposing a fixed 6m schedule (in order to accumulate a reasonably big RIP?).

There is a fixed six month schedule.

Maybe the authors could explain the rationale for the particular schedule?

That particular schedule was proposed and nobody objected to it. Regards, S. Moonesamy

Hi Wilfried, Sorry for not responding to this sooner, job transition and time off work didn't help... Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet said the following on 9/08/11 19:49 :

I agree, and thus I support the proposed policy.

Thank you! :-)

Checking the text again, I do see some aspects that may be ambiguous and/or require clarification:

Section 1.0, after bullet point 2, <quote> The Recovered IPv4 Pool will stay inactive until the first RIR has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space. </quote>

As the different regions do have, or are still discussing, various (micro-)policies to reserve blocks or to set aside blocks for specific purposes, the term "inventory" either needs clarification/definition or there should be an explanation which part(s) of the RIR's IPv4 address space is considered to belong to the "inventory".

My personal proposal would be to clearly state that *all* currently unused space in an RIR is considered its "inventory".

The authors intention was that all currently *unused* space would be considered to be the RIR's inventory.

As an aside, and given the fact that there is no specification about the fate of returned address blocks within a Region, what is expected to happen, when and if no RIR is below the /9 threshold any longer? Will the RIP (Recovered IPv4 Pool :-) ) be declared inactive again, or not? I do understand that this is not very likely.

The intention of the authors was that this policy remains until replaced by another policy. Otherwise we'd have written that this policy would no longer apply once no RIR was below the /9 threshold again.

Regarding timelines:

It is not clear to me, whether the 1st round of redistribution happens "immediately" after declaring the RIP active, and thereafter will be synched to the March1/Sept1 schedule? Alternatively, the 1st round may be executed at the next scheduled date.

My personal preference here would be to act "immediately" and then take up the schedule, with the effect of potentially not having anything to dish out for the next round(s) and thus skip the next scheduled date(s) .

However, this approach may run against the intention(?) of proposing a fixed 6m schedule (in order to accumulate a reasonably big RIP?).

Maybe the authors could explain the rationale for the particular schedule?

We picked two months of the year, and March/Sept seemed reasonable in that they avoided calendar anniversaries and some major holiday seasons. Hope this helps! philip --