IPv4 policy document and request forms updated
Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as follows: - Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other input, we have also updated the following documents: - Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. - AS Number Request Form. There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version number of the forms will not change. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Leo, On 2004-10-28, at 15.49, leo vegoda wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as follows:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22.
As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other input, we have also updated the following documents:
Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to AFriNIC services"? Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter? - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYFgraarNKXTPFCVEQIA4QCfXDIVpqu6sgvHVPu9FRNn7Dui1BYAn1jz sUPk5iF2KJTsc1ILcFF2srJk =qc31 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22.
Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to AFriNIC services"?
Those are the ones that are affected, yes. As far as I understand, these are mainly the same LIRs that *are* "operating in Africa". Multi-continental LIRs are quite likely not going to receive a minimum-sized first allocation, so the difference in wording should not make a difference in practice.
Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter?
I think it doesn't matter. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi! On 2004-10-28, at 23.32, Gert Doering wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22.
Wasn't the Africa /22 rule actually for "LIRs that will be migrated to AFriNIC services"?
Those are the ones that are affected, yes. As far as I understand, these are mainly the same LIRs that *are* "operating in Africa".
Multi-continental LIRs are quite likely not going to receive a minimum-sized first allocation, so the difference in wording should not make a difference in practice.
Or don't I remember correctly? Or doesn't that matter?
I think it doesn't matter.
Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be transfered to AfriNIC. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHXoqarNKXTPFCVEQJjswCeIGjw9WCL+l8kIx7R9d8FYOxilIUAn2OA cxI+1uqNDX9rHTTuFnQolvfb =kOuZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:39:39AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. [..] I think it doesn't matter.
Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be transfered to AfriNIC.
Neither am I, but this policy isn't going to affect existing LIRs anyway :-) - it's a *first allocation size* policy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert and all, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:39:39AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 11:12:05PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22. [..] I think it doesn't matter.
Ok. I more wasn't sure if there are LIRs in Africa that won't be transfered to AfriNIC.
Neither am I, but this policy isn't going to affect existing LIRs anyway :-) - it's a *first allocation size* policy.
Good point here except as to how such policies are determined, regardless of what those policies are... And if they are appropriate to be significantly different when considering a limited resource. As I recall, many years ago now, Jon Postel kinda botched the IPv4 address policy and practice as to allocation, in such a manner as to be too lax and good ole boyish...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Leo and all, Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that? leo vegoda wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has updated the policy document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region". This update documents the recent changes to the policy for allocation sizes as follows:
- Minimum first allocation size is /21. - Minimum first allocation size for LIRs operating in Africa is /22.
As a consequence of this update, and in order to incorporate other input, we have also updated the following documents:
- Supporting Notes for the Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Provider Independent (PI) Assignment Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the IPv4 First Allocation Request Form. - Supporting Notes for the Autonomous System Number Request Form. - AS Number Request Form.
There will be no change to the way you complete the request forms. As the updates to the forms listed above are purely textual, the version number of the forms will not change.
Kind regards,
-- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Hi, (CC: list trimmed to ap-wg) On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that?
AfriNIC-to-be's constituency has requested it to be that way, and it was approved in one of the previous RIPE meetings. Mainly it's to be in-line with the african countries that are currently served by ARIN, which have a /22 as minimum allocation size. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert and all, Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such? Interesting method of policy determination... Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
(CC: list trimmed to ap-wg)
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 02:15:04PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Why would Africa's be different? Is there a rational for that?
AfriNIC-to-be's constituency has requested it to be that way, and it was approved in one of the previous RIPE meetings.
Mainly it's to be in-line with the african countries that are currently served by ARIN, which have a /22 as minimum allocation size.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it.
Interesting method of policy determination..
Why? This is how all address-policy is determined. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHX9KarNKXTPFCVEQI/TwCgnxQ84L4OzisqnaMmfKmGjQ2GrvsAoJiG 1XV3UNYgYg7okusqfoa8vIdd =fY3J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it.
Interesting method of policy determination..
Why? This is how all address-policy is determined.
And there is the curx of the problem...
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYHX9KarNKXTPFCVEQI/TwCgnxQ84L4OzisqnaMmfKmGjQ2GrvsAoJiG 1XV3UNYgYg7okusqfoa8vIdd =fY3J -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I should know better than replying to this... On 2004-10-29, at 09.59, Jeff Williams wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it.
Interesting method of policy determination..
Why? This is how all address-policy is determined.
And there is the curx of the problem...
Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process? Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYHhXKarNKXTPFCVEQKM4wCgwXPOXk125iEJ5C4zPoWT4lAsPGkAoPDd ovgvWo1X09V8ro0kJXIpOdVX =WQiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I should know better than replying to this...
Well I am sorry you feel that way...
On 2004-10-29, at 09.59, Jeff Williams wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2004-10-29, at 06.50, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
No. RIPE members brought this to the address-policy WG that discussed this and agreed on it.
Interesting method of policy determination..
Why? This is how all address-policy is determined.
And there is the curx of the problem...
Ah...you mean an open and transparent policy process?
No of course not...
Ok fare enough. Most the rest of us think that is a good thing. You're ofcourse free to disagree.
No I am all for it. However if a policy for one is different than for another is that wise? Maybe so, maybe not so... If Afnic is happy with it, great! >;) But is it reasonable to call it a "Policy". Or would it be more accurate to say a "Policy for Afnic" and everyone else has a different policy? Just trying to understand what the criterion if any for determining "Policies" are and should be... But I am happy to see that not one size fits all, if you will pardon the pun... >;)
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYHhXKarNKXTPFCVEQKM4wCgwXPOXk125iEJ5C4zPoWT4lAsPGkAoPDd ovgvWo1X09V8ro0kJXIpOdVX =WQiB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Hi, On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
Every region has different policies. The part of the RIPE region that is going to be AfriNIC soon has a different policy from the "core" RIPE region, yes. This was, as I said, mainly done to get all the parts of Africa "in line" with a common policy - both the LIRs served by RIPE today, as well as the LIRs served by ARIN today.
Interesting method of policy determination...
*All* policy is the way it is because the LIRs affected have requested it, and achieved consensus on it. You can read up the discussion and the motivation behind the change in the mailing list and meeting archives. It's not necessary to discuss this again now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert and all, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
Every region has different policies.
I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by. I hope that this ( See above ) was not too long winded for some, or any of you on this forum. But it seemed to me that the exchanges here were not being well understood, so I tried to break it down a little more detailed...
The part of the RIPE region that is going to be AfriNIC soon has a different policy from the "core" RIPE region, yes.
This was, as I said, mainly done to get all the parts of Africa "in line" with a common policy - both the LIRs served by RIPE today, as well as the LIRs served by ARIN today.
Interesting method of policy determination...
*All* policy is the way it is because the LIRs affected have requested it, and achieved consensus on it.
You can read up the discussion and the motivation behind the change in the mailing list and meeting archives.
It's not necessary to discuss this again now.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff, On 2004-10-29, at 13.17, Jeff Williams wrote:
I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by.
I think that you should at least a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings. b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history of AfriNIC. You mail above is simply so out of the blue it's hard to reply to without giving you a full training on RIRs. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYIRUKarNKXTPFCVEQKPqwCbBOwTLNzOOi6w65hXaHmbghX5B2gAoPZU 9Eak66R0yY4KzKBpc7PdPeoZ =6nRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kurt and all, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jeff,
On 2004-10-29, at 13.17, Jeff Williams wrote:
I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by.
I think that you should at least
a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings.
I have done so and was from time to time an active participant in regards to the email forums. See archives.
b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history of AfriNIC.
Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current.
You mail above is simply so out of the blue it's hard to reply to without giving you a full training on RIRs.
Had the training myself. But I can understand that what I am asking may facilitate a more in depth answer. However I would have to wonder why to a certain degree, as the methods don't seem to be very comprehensive as to policy determination in respect to how and what the determination factors are, and if or when the may change, so as to than justify a change in policy for each or only some RIR's especially on a limited resource such as IPv4... What I am getting is that most if not all of the policies regarding any allocation aspect of IPv4 are more politically driven with the cloak of openness and transparency and a lack or structure for policy determination that is or should be equitable regarding IPv4 as it is a restricted resource...
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYIRUKarNKXTPFCVEQKPqwCbBOwTLNzOOi6w65hXaHmbghX5B2gAoPZU 9Eak66R0yY4KzKBpc7PdPeoZ =6nRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-10-29, at 14.10, Jeff Williams wrote:
a) Follow Gert's advice and read up on the documentation and discussions that led to this decision in the first place. See mail archives and minutes from previous address-policy WG meetings.
I have done so and was from time to time an active participant in regards to the email forums. See archives.
b) Please read up on the service regions of the RIRs and the history of AfriNIC.
Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current.
Your post clearly indicates that you do not. As has been pointed out, the LIRs that will be migrated to AfriNIC are served byt both RIPE and ARIN currently. AfriNIC is NOT "served by ARIN". It is NOT on the request of AfriNIC this proposal was accepted. Etc, etc. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQYIhVqarNKXTPFCVEQKnUACfRtl4x6M084dZ/V1GCceTmiF0O+EAmwWH QhL/zgLkydDzzk6nXOsgsEMF =G4Zx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Why do we keep arguing with Jeff Williams? That's an exercise in futility. Procmail is your friend, but now I see your responses.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:55:51PM +0300, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote a message of 9 lines which said:
Why do we keep arguing with Jeff Williams?
Because there is no easy way in procmail to filter out replies *to* Jeff Williams. I have: # Too much is too much :0 * ^From:.*Jeff Williams /dev/null in my .procmailrc for a long time so I missed the original troll but I get all the replies by people well intentioned but ignorant about Jeff Williams.
On 2004-10-29, at 14.10, Jeff Williams wrote:
Also done so and I like to think I have kept pretty current. Your post clearly indicates that you do not.
there is another explanation. jeff williams is a well-known net sociopath who makes a senseless ruckus wherever he can. i am surprised that people are feeding this slimy troll. procmail is your friend. randy
On Friday 29 October 2004 12:17, Jeff Williams wrote:
Gert and all,
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
Every region has different policies.
I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by.
IIRC, there are currently parts (of the to be AfriNIC) which are served by ARIN whilst other parts are served by RIPE. In the end, it's up to the AfriNIC members to decide their own policy but in the meantime the interim policy (if you like) has to be ratified by both RIPE and ARIN (correct me if I'm wrong). ARIN currently allow /22 min alloc' so it makes sense for AfriNIC to go for the lowest common denominator (ie a /22). This was discussed on this mailing list and at Ripe meetings and agreed to by the members present. As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on this :) Jon
Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on this :)
That's mostly the way it works today. Someone has an itch about the current policy, and proposes a change to the list. The list discusses the proposal. "Most of the people are in favour of it" -> the proposal is formalized, and re-circulated on the list (and discussed in the RIPE meetings). If we have "rough consensus" that this is the way to go forward, it's incorporated into the existing policy. A somewhat more formal policy process is, right now, being worked upon, and we're waiting for a formal policy proposal on the policy process to-be from Rob Blokzijl :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert and all, There is no such thing in fact as "Rough Consensus", never has been. Such a concept is ephemeral at best. If consensus is measured in an open and transparent manner for all effected, than real consensus can be legitimately claimed.. Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:53:58AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote:
As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on this :)
That's mostly the way it works today.
Someone has an itch about the current policy, and proposes a change to the list.
The list discusses the proposal.
"Most of the people are in favour of it" -> the proposal is formalized, and re-circulated on the list (and discussed in the RIPE meetings).
If we have "rough consensus" that this is the way to go forward, it's incorporated into the existing policy.
A somewhat more formal policy process is, right now, being worked upon, and we're waiting for a formal policy proposal on the policy process to-be from Rob Blokzijl :-)
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 66629 (65398)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
Jon and all, Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to political pressure? Jon Lawrence wrote:
On Friday 29 October 2004 12:17, Jeff Williams wrote:
Gert and all,
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:50:36PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
Thanks for your explanation. So I guess this means two different policies because Afnic in this case "requested" such?
Every region has different policies.
I understand that every region has different policies. However isn't AFriNIC serviced via ARIN? And as such if all other RIR's have distinct policies, as well as distinct policy determination practices and/or policies for making policy determinations than it would seem logical that in AFriNIC's case it should have the same minimal allocation policy as ARIN does. If not, than I and still trying to understand why not, and than secondly what are the criterion for determining policy(s) are used that justifies a different minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC vs ARIN in this instance other than AFriNIC just asking for a different minimal allocation in an open and transparent manner. Is therefore by just asking, a minimal allocation policy for AFriNIC also applicable to other RIR's? If not, why not? If so, than is there any structure by which any allocation or other policies determined by.
IIRC, there are currently parts (of the to be AfriNIC) which are served by ARIN whilst other parts are served by RIPE. In the end, it's up to the AfriNIC members to decide their own policy but in the meantime the interim policy (if you like) has to be ratified by both RIPE and ARIN (correct me if I'm wrong). ARIN currently allow /22 min alloc' so it makes sense for AfriNIC to go for the lowest common denominator (ie a /22). This was discussed on this mailing list and at Ripe meetings and agreed to by the members present.
As to the structure for changing policies (in the RIPE region) I believe that you simply post a possible 'new policy' to this group - perhaps contacting the WG-chairs before hand - and if there is enough support for the policy then it you present it at the next RIPE meeting. If there is support for the policy at the meeting then it will enter somekind of discussion phase prior to being accepted as policy - I'm sure Gert et all will put me right on this :)
Jon
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jeff Williams wrote: > Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the > understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having > one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having > another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE > and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. > Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in > some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to > political pressure? There was no politics involved. The community requested for this at the ISPA i-week meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa last year. Below is partly the text that was in that proposal: The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of the Internet in Africa. regards, Ernest.
Ernest and all, Yes I read this some time ago. It reads with some very strong politically motivated overtones to me... Ernest Byaruhanga wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Thank you Jon for your explanation. I now have the > understanding I thought I had but was taken back by ARIN having > one allocation policy for minimal allocations and AFriNIC having > another in that AFriNIC is in part somehow connected to both RIPE > and ARIN, so than AFriNIC elected to go with a lower allocation. > Still one has to wonder as to why AFriNIC went that way as it in > some ways doesn't make good sense... Perhaps that was due to > political pressure?
There was no politics involved. The community requested for this at the ISPA i-week meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa last year. Below is partly the text that was in that proposal:
The economies of Africa and those of other countries in the ARIN region (United States and Canada) are not of the same scale. The number of Internet users inside Africa is much fewer than in the other countries in the ARIN region. Whereas it may be reasonable to expect that the user numbers in North America support an ISP's ability to meet the current ARIN IPv4 criteria, it is not reasonable in Africa. Unable to meet the current criteria to obtain IPv4 address space from ARIN, and unable to obtain adequate address space from upstream providers; African ISPs must resort to solutions such as NAT, or sometimes are simply not able to provide services to customers due to the lack of IPv4 address space. Lack of adequate IPv4 address space may be slowing down the growth and development of the Internet in Africa.
regards,
Ernest.
Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "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. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827
participants (9)
-
Ernest Byaruhanga -
Gert Doering -
Jeff Williams -
Jon Lawrence -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
leo vegoda -
Pekka Savola -
Randy Bush -
Stephane Bortzmeyer