Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
On 9/3/12 3:50 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP? http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-poo... According to this graph we have one month to go. Cheers, Jan Zorz
Hi, On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:02:20PM +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
On 9/3/12 3:50 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP?
We have all time of the world, as this only affects policy *after* the IPv4 runout :-) (and there's no way to get this through before). This is not really aimed at "RIPE NCC address distribution", but as the RIPE IPv4 address policy also sets the policy for "LIR to end customer address assignment", and the *timelines* for that, it does make a difference. To those LIRs that work operate to policy (which they all sign...), and have some addresses left in stock... 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 9/3/12 4:30 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
We have all time of the world, as this only affects policy *after* the IPv4 runout :-) (and there's no way to get this through before).
This is not really aimed at "RIPE NCC address distribution", but as the RIPE IPv4 address policy also sets the policy for "LIR to end customer address assignment", and the *timelines* for that, it does make a difference.
Hi, apparently I misread and/or misuderstood the policy change proposal. From this point of view - it makes sense.
To those LIRs that work operate to policy (which they all sign...), and have some addresses left in stock...
Yes. Cheers, Jan
Hi Jan,
I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP?
http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-poo l-graph
According to this graph we have one month to go.
This would also apply for the transfer policies I assume. So if 2009:03 would be reverted, it would also allow transfers of larger blocks than what one might consume in 3 months. Which would be good looking at routing table size imho. Erik Bais
On 3 September 2012 16:47, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
This would also apply for the transfer policies I assume. So if 2009:03 would be reverted, it would also allow transfers of larger blocks than what one might consume in 3 months. Which would be good looking at routing table size imho.
but thats already covered by 2012-03 J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
Hi, On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 04:52:42PM +0100, boggits wrote:
On 3 September 2012 16:47, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
This would also apply for the transfer policies I assume. So if 2009:03 would be reverted, it would also allow transfers of larger blocks than what one might consume in 3 months. Which would be good looking at routing table size imho.
but thats already covered by 2012-03
True, there's overlap here - 2012-03 de-couples the timelines, while 2012-06 restores the old ones (for "everything that refers to them"). So we don't have a conflict here (but indeed, accepting 2012-06 and stalling 2012-03 would make 2012-03 somewhat superfluous). 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
* Gert Doering
(but indeed, accepting 2012-06 and stalling 2012-03 would make 2012-03 somewhat superfluous).
Well, 2012-03 seeks to increase the need period for transfers of allocations to two years, while 2012-06 would only increase that period to one year. Therefore, if the WG wants the need period for transfers to increase to two years, 2012-03 is not superfluous at all (irrespective of the status of 2012-06). You could argue that by passing 2012-06 first, 2012-03 would be easier to pass, as it would then be a smaller change policy (+12 months rather than +21 months). On the other hand, you could also argue that 2012-06 undermines the rationale for 2012-03 - if the WG's opinion is that 12 months (but not 3 months) is a sufficiently long need period for transfers. It is my understanding that if both 2012-03 and 2012-06 passes (in that order), the change made by 2012-06 to section 5.0 would not actually change any actively used policy. There is still a small benefit to doing so anyway, in my opinion, as it would remove four paragraphs of defunct policy text. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
participants (5)
-
boggits -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Tore Anderson