Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)
Dear WG I support this policy. It seems natural to me that for allocation of subsequent space the same rules apply like for the initial allocation. It also helps organizations, that have received their space before the updated initial allocation policy can receive space based on the same criteria. Silvia Hagen Chair Swiss IPv6 Council -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Re: [address-policy-wg] Working group chair rotation 2
Go for it! :-) +1 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Sander Steffann Gesendet: Montag, 8. Februar 2016 21:24 An: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Betreff: [address-policy-wg] Working group chair rotation 2 Hello working group, A year has passed since we implemented our working group chair rotation mechanism, so it is time for one of the APWG chairs to offer his place in case the working group would like to see a change of chair. This time it is my turn to step down, and I will do so in the APWG session at RIPE 72 in Copenhagen. So this is the time for candidates to volunteer and make themselves known here on the list! To be considered candidates must make themselves know before the start of RIPE 72. So, let me start by volunteering again :) I would love to serve this working group for another term as one of its chairs. A short introduction for those who don't know me: * age 39 * shoe size 46, usually not wearing sandals though * university degree in computer science, master on distributed systems for supporting business processes * self-employed IPv6 consultant, customers include ISPs and enterprises * run a small LISP based ISP on AS57771 * attending RIPE meetings since RIPE 49 in Manchester, 2004 (missed none) * address policy working group co-chair since RIPE 54 in Tallinn, 2007 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/minutes-from-ripe-54) And now for the future plans * guide the working group in making good policies * maintain a good standard of communication on the mailing list * while also giving space to people with different opinions * aiming to arrive at simple and fair policies for the benefit of the whole community * and explicitly not having a personal agenda while doing so I essentially want to use what I have learned in the last 9 years and continue to guide the working group in always-improving ways. Cheers, Sander Steffann (and thanks to Gert for providing a template to use when writing messages like this: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-April/009659.html) ;)
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi Gert Sure, I fully agree with what you are saying, that is actually what I meant with use common sense. So we add to that and with the necessary technical understanding. The reason that I made the statement from this perspective is that in my consultings I have seen a lot more oft he restricted thinking (like when a global organization says: we got a /48 and I guess we will find a way to live with that, it is more than we ever had :-) So let's go for balance :-) Silvia -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net] Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 13:51 An: Silvia Hagen Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Hi, On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:31:54AM +, Silvia Hagen wrote: There is a widely adopted rule that all address conservation mechanisms should be removed from IPv6 address plans. You can't do that on a RIR level - if the IPRAs were to hand out a /16 for everyone that comes with a nice diagram, we'd actually run out of IPv6 soon. Of course a /16 is excaggerating a bit - but I have seen my share of network plans made totally without understanding for bits, hierarchy or actual *networking*, resulting in oh, for these 500 sites, we definitely need a /24! (and oh, for all the electronic passports for 100 million citizens, we must have a /19!) - and thus it is good practice to have someone more experienced in addressing review the plan and see whether it makes sense. (Just to point out the obvious - from the early days of /35s I have been fighting for more liberal IPv6 allocation policies, but it still needs to be done with a solid technical understanding, and not with I like large numbers, so get me a /15 please! - this is the balance we need to find, or otherwise we'll find us faster than expected in the oops, fp 001 is gone! land) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: Hi, [...] Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...] Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests). Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said: It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. only to then say: Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
Support it -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Montag, 8. Juni 2015 15:43 An: policy-annou...@ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Hi all I support this proposal +1 From my background as Chair of the Swiss IPv6 Council and many years of working with large organizations such as enterprises and governments, I know that basing an allocation size on number of users and size of network is not sufficient and does not allow them to create address plans that meet their various requirements. I think the RIPE NCC needs an open framework to be able to make meaningful allocations to such organizations, and thereby support and maybe even accelerate the deployment of IPv6 in the RIPE region. I therefore support it. Silvia Chair Swiss IPv6 Council -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von LIR (BIT I 5) Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2015 11:57 An: Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Hello, I agree with this opinion. Therefore: +1 Carsten LIR de.government -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von James Blessing Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. April 2015 14:20 An: Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) On 28 April 2015 at 13:00, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote: The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and extent of the organisation's infrastructure. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 Support at current stage - may change after seeing IA J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
