Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-04-30 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Hi Sergiu,


Il 30/04/2016 19:15, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy 
Proposals - April Update


salut Riccardo,


1. I propose that here -


Proposals Open for Discussion:

2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"


Proposal Overviews:


PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4

allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the

proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more

than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before.

STATUS: Discussion Phase

WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
address-policy-wg@ripe.net 


DEADLINE: 13 May 2016

FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05


to be introduced a definition that includes in the " has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before" list the LIR that 
transferred a prefix to an other LIR if this prefix was allocated to 
the receiving LIR when it was not the RIPE NCC member/LIR.


If I understand well your point this is already a requirement in 
2015-05. Please have a look to the full proposal at 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
point [...] "3.1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space to 
another LIR, a member of another RIR, or an End User." [...]



2. explain pls what does it signify


The latest version of the proposal suggests several requirements, such 
as the LIR cannot hold more than a /20 IPv4



cannot hold more then /20 unused ?

Doesn't matter if the /20 is used or not. With current text of the 
2015-05 if an LIR already holds up to a /20 could not request any 
additional allocation from available pool outside 185/8.

If he didn't request a last /22 from 185/8 he can request it at any time.
Feel free to give the list your opinion about supporting 2015-05 or not.

thank you for your interest
kind regards
Riccardo






Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 6:41:04 PM, you wrote:





Hi Sergiu,


thank you for your reply. I don't get if you disagree with current 
policy or proposed one.


Anyway:

The LIR that assisgned or allocated  the first /22 to your current new 
LIR can transfert the space once 24 months are passed.


This is the holding time before a transfert can take place standing on 
current policies.


2015-05 policy proposal won't change this aspect.


kind regards

Riccardo



Il 30/04/2016 11:29, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

salut Riccardo,


I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.


you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual 
example..



2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 
year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because 
of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was 
the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls 
answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one 
if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of 
the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated 
by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).





Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:





Dear Sergiu,

about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 
2015-05:


Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described 
in transfert or allocation policies.


The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that 
assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later 
transfered the space in Company X registry.


This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside 
its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 
allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal



On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 
months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would 
be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. 
The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned 
resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its 
registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.



hope this help

regards

Riccardo


Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

hello,

Re: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

2016-04-30 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Hi Sergiu,

thank you for your reply. I don't get if you disagree with current 
policy or proposed one.

Anyway:
The LIR that assisgned or allocated  the first /22 to your current new 
LIR can transfert the space once 24 months are passed.
This is the holding time before a transfert can take place standing on 
current policies.

2015-05 policy proposal won't change this aspect.


kind regards

Riccardo


Il 30/04/2016 11:29, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
Re[2]: [address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy 
Proposals - April Update


salut Riccardo,


I do not totally agree with you.. and I explain why.


you are talking about the case in the future.. but I give an actual 
example..



2 years ago my company has an allocated prefix from a LIR. After 1 
year we asked additional resources and had a negative response because 
of the RIPE Policy limitations. after the next year the situation was 
the same and to receive an additional prefix we became LIR. Now, pls 
answer... why to not permit transfer from the old LIR to the new one 
if they agree on it and do it for ensure the new LIR in continuity of 
the prefix use (all this with condition that this prefix was allocated 
by the old LIR when the new LIR has the status OTHER).





Best Regards,


-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...





Saturday, April 30, 2016, 8:33:49 AM, you wrote:





Dear Sergiu,

about your example and its eventual realtionship with the proposal 
2015-05:


Company X would have not limit in receive address space as described 
in transfert or allocation policies.


The limit described in 2015-05 would be applied to the LIR that 
assigned space to Company X and, as described in your example, later 
transfered the space in Company X registry.


This LIR is supposed to not need address space as it moved it outside 
its registry so it would not be able to request an additional /22 
allocation from pool outside 185/8 standing on 2015-05 proposal



On the other hand if Company X after its sing up as a new LIR after 18 
months need more space and there is enough space outside 185/8  would 
be able to request an additional /22 standing on  2015-05 proposal. 
The LIR that offered the first /22 to Company X as  "assigned 
resource" could also request an additional /22 allocation if its 
registry is holding less than a /20 IPv4.



hope this help

regards

Riccardo


Il 29/04/2016 10:38, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:

hello,


PLS, take in consideration the situation


Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4

spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it

is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the

space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to

not be the part from the policy -


"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address

space before."


What are you thinking about?



Best Regards,



-

Sergiu IANCIUC

SC ITNS.NET SRL



MD-2068, Moldova

or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1

tel.: +373 22 877 877

fax : +373 22 44 11 73

mobile: +373 690 22 111

url: http://www.itns.md



Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...









This is a forwarded message

From: Marco Schmidt  

To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net 

Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM

Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update



===8<==Original message text===

Dear colleagues,


Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in

the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).


If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please

do so on the relevant working group mailing list.


Proposals Open for Discussion:

2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"


Proposals Awaiting Input:

2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"

2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy"



Proposal Overviews:


PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4

allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the

proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more

than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not

transferred any IPv4 address space before.

STATUS: Discussion Phase

WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
address-policy-wg@ripe.net 


DEADLINE: 13 May 2016

FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05


=


The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any

further in the PDP.


PROPOSAL: