Re: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management

ihomed. >> >> So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet >> (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness) >> >> Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time >> trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASN

Re: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management

Hi Mike, Are these setups still multihome? Regardsm Arash Naderpour On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM Mike Bromwich wrote: > Hi, > > One other aspect to consider - there are situations where public ASNs (and > addresses) are required - but not directly connected to the Internet.

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-682 Transfer Policy Problems

There is a catch, 20 LIRs cannot be merged into a single LIR of the new parent company, unless it has passed 2years from the /24 allocation date. So after the merge, the new parent company still has to pay for 20 LIRs till the time /24 can be transferred, Regards, Arash >>So merging a shell

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hi Marco, Could you please let me know how many organizations have 10 or more LIR accounts? Thanks, Arash Naderpour On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:22 PM Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > In the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 83, I shared our > observatio

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

n’t > be, but with an elite thinking they know best, will it ever be? > > Op wo 8 dec. 2021 om 08:03 schreef Arash Naderpour > >> >My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG >> >meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. >>

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Dec 8, 2021 at 6:41 PM Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 06:03:53PM +1100, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > >My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG > > >meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. > &

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

>My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG >meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. I don't think it is a good idea to split the IPv4 addresses into different types, transferable and non-transferrable. it puts those newcomers in a

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hi, >I think that I speak for the WG, that the intent for the final /8 policy and the waitinglist policy, is to provide IPv4 (at least a small bit) to newcomers .. meaning that how it currently works and how it was >intended .. that this might not align with what the WG initially wanted. A

Re: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions

An existing member can register a new entity to apply as a new member. And it is legally a different entity and no one can stop them from getting a new membership, and a new /24... We have been here before... Regards, Arash On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, 21:30 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via

Re: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions

Hi, How does it work with EU and Dutch sanctions regulations? Regards, Arash Naderpour On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:52 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > Greetings, > > in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of > the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool g

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs)

Hi, Do we know how many /29 we have available in the IXP reserved pool? if there are only few ones, it doesn't make scene to me set the default to /29 as it would be a good practice for just few allocations. Can someone from RIPE NCC provide us with an statistic on number of different prefixes

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase *extended* (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi all, I also support this proposal, Regards, Arash Naderpour On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:08:07PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assign

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Daniel, >you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can >look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from >number of IP addresses they hold. RIPE NCC members can change this charging scheme, right? It was not like this always... > One

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Carlos, >> > This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That >> will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new >> entrants in >> this community, by trying to extend the time period until the >> runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi Carlos, > > This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will > happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new entrants > in this community, by trying to extend the time period until the runout > occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, I don't see a need to do this change in the policy at the moment. consummation rate is the same as before. Even if there is a need, it could be 3x/24 or /23.why change it from /22 to /24? Arash On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2017,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other restrictions in place) Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:san...@steffann.nl] Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016 8:21 AM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com> Cc: Riccardo Gori <rg...@

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, The ones that already have a grown business needs to be targeted to return their IP addresses and switch to IPv6 as soon as possible, They already had enough time, Not the ones that recently started. If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now looking to put some

Re: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses

Soon or late it will end up here to “IPv4 is DEAD, go and develop IPv6”, that’s a regular answer here when you bring up something related to IPv4 J Your idea looks like a disk defragmentation procedure, but first you need to check how many percent it is defragmented and how much free

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> > > > This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the > burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network > with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain. > > When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need to be

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT! > And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones? Arash

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

IPv6 is not the answer for everything no matter how manytime you repeat that, it is not availble and possible to deploy everywhere. Arash On Friday, 17 June 2016, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied > wrote: > > >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

>This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely, trade, instead of "use for customers". That's not true, it can affect any holder of /22 from 185/8 not only "young LIRs". Even if it was limited to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

, it make unnecessary limitation and put a part of community in an unfair situation. If returning an allocation is something visible it can be done to any allocation, not just the smallest ones. Regards, Arash Naderpour

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 reserved space

>Well, using 240/3 isn't something that realistic. It is a lot easier to deply IPv6 than to get 240/3 working for any significant amount of users. Some may prefer easier ways (which is not that much easy to others) and some may not, My question is that is this working group the right place to

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment

2016 8:47 PM To: Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com> Cc: 'Jim Reid' <j...@rfc1035.com>; 'RIPE Address Policy WG List' <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 deployment Arash Naderpour wrote: > Agree here with you, this is not appropriate to d

Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space

And I don't understand why some people think that everyone can deploy IPv6, it is simply not available everywhere. It is not about difficulty, it is about possibility. Regards, Arash -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, Re-allocate their IP space to what? Would be any new allocation for them in 1-3 years? Regards, Arash -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of DI. Thomas Schallar Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 4:54 PM To: Aleksey Bulgakov

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

rom "last /8 allocation" there? Cheers, Arash Naderpour P.S my understanding from 2015-05 is that it divides the current pool into 2 separate parts, last allocation of /8 and additional free IP pool received from IANA. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.c

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi Mikael, The last /8 is not really get affected by this policy, - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8 Is it the only reason of your objection to this policy? Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

ctually still space left to haggle about. This new policy is not going to hand over any left available IP address in the pool out considering the conditions, 185/8 would be untouched. Cheers, Arash Naderpour From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On B

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

cannot transfer out your /22 for 2years, So affection to the depletion rate looks less than setting up multi LIR to receive immediately an /22 from 185/8 or encouraging small businesses in need of small blocks to become LIR. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Sebastian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 proposal

>Tough. We’re out of IPv4. We’re all struggling due to a lack of IPv4 >resources. Everyone just has to make the best of it with whatever they have >now. Anyone >planning to grow their network using IPv4 simply cannot base >their plans on repeatedly going to >the NCC and asking for more. It’s

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

in depletion rate from my point of view. Regards, Arash Naderpour On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Peter Hessler <phess...@theapt.org> wrote: > On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 14:19:43 +0200 (+0200), Riccardo Gori wrote: > :Hi Sander, > : > :Il 09/05/2016 10:42, Sander Steffann ha

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

I support 2015-5, I don’t see any benefit to migrate to IPv6 at the moment (and in short term) and prefer to use IPv4 as long as I can. As I'm not looking at last /22 as a migration tool to IPv6, receiving more IPv4 from RIPE NCC looks fine to me. Arash -Original Message- From:

Re: [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

rform an outbound transfer" I'm also thinking to prepare a proposal to remove current 24month transfer wait period (or adjust it), IPs should be transferred easily for a better utilization and really like to see the community feedback on your proposal. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Origin

[address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

to transfer it and I don't see any reason for this limitation. As a side effect it makes it harder for IP distribution which is the main goal of RIPE. Regards, Arash Naderpour

Re: [address-policy-wg] Opposing policy 2015-01

it has unnecessary effect on some of the genuine LIRs too. Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 2:21 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

support the idea of letting them receive additional blocks from RIPE NCC directly for their own use. Regards, Arash Naderpour Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 From: Staff off...@ip4market.ru To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

there is no IPv6 option they just can't use it). If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Aleksi Suhonen [mailto:ripe-ml-2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis

Hi Saeed, I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for 2 years for the new /22 blocks. Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. Regards, Arash Naderpour

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi, This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Gert Doering [mailto:g