Re: [address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

that some "small" group was working already on that, and they didn't even provide the opportunity to the other volunteers to participate. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 16/3/22, 13:04, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:25:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET M

Re: [address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

encouraged and warmly welcomed to actively contribute to the review by providing their feedback and input on the mailing list. Regards, James On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:51 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: Not too much, was a short presentation: https://ripe8

Re: [address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

he meeting notes so i can read deeper on the discussion and see what i could contribute with in more details? Or if you feel you have the time to help me catch up what has been said. Either is perfectly fine to me. On 2022-03-16 11:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-

Re: [address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

this lies close to my heart and i hope that if you do need more people that you could accept someone very green to RIPE but very weilling to contribute. Regards, Mathias W. On 2022-03-16 10:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: Hi all, In the last WG meeting (a

[address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 policy goals

Hi all, In the last WG meeting (at the RIPE 83), there was a brief presentation from the chairs about the possible review of IPv6 policy goals. I recall there was at least 3-4 people that volunteered (included myself), but after that we didn't get any discussion in the list or among the people

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

dos, Jordi @jordipalet El 7/3/22 12:32, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Marcus Stoegbauer" escribió: Apologies for the late reply, I'm just catching up with my mailing lists.. On 27 Jan 2022, at 16:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I'm not c

Re: [address-policy-wg] RU goverment IP revoke

2022 at 10:41 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > The problem is that Russia is under the control of a criminal dictator and a crazy one. He is just looking for a worldwide nuclear conflict, clearly. According to the news, now he just threatened Fi

[address-policy-wg] RU goverment IP revoke

The problem is that Russia is under the control of a criminal dictator and a crazy one. He is just looking for a worldwide nuclear conflict, clearly. According to the news, now he just threatened Finland and Sweden. If the rest of the world keeps surrendering to his wishes, as we did many

Re: [address-policy-wg] RU goverment IP revoke

While I will applaud something like that, I don't think we can do it as RIPE community, unless there is any specific legal section in the RSA against countries taking over other countries and then the NCC can make it happen ... I think such kind of actions, including ordering all the transit

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

That look to me as a good approach. That will be a good way to handle "really needed" IPv4 experiments, which I don't think are relevant anymore, but I'm happy to support if there are good and needed cases considering the good of the overall community. The negative part is the overhead of the

Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

I'm not convinced that we should "today", provide IPv4 temporary assignments, neither for conferences or experiments. A conference can perfectly survive today with a single IPv4 public address (or very few of them) from the ISP providing the link (even if running BGP), using 464XLAT, so the

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

it is different business units or subsidiaries of the same "original" LIR. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 24/11/21 11:45, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:48AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-polic

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

Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify documents, etc., right? El 24/11/21 11:35, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:30:06AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >

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

I don't think this will work and it not fair. Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from exisiting members. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/11/21 21:53, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Wolfgang Zenker" escribió: Greetings, in todays WG

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

+1 We may need to consider if it is right that the remains of IPv4 can be allocated to new LIRs from existing members instead to only new-entrants. I think the community must be fairer. This is the way handled in other RIRs as well (not all them). If the problem with IPv6 is that the

Re: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"?

Not acting is a path for abuse and stockpiling. Not fair and we must resolve it avoiding it as much as possible. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/11/21 11:59, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Staff" escribió: Hello everybody, Of cause no. That will not help. always

Re: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"?

t;? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/11/21 11:46, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 11:43:09AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discu

[address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"?

Hi all, After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discussion and the recent discussions on this, as I just mention, should we work in a policy proposal to amend the internal procedure so the justification for additional LIRs is stronger? I understand many cases for the need of

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling

Hi Marco, all, I think we need to better understand the reasons/background on those multiple allocations. If the justification for a larger allocation is too "heavy" (I personally don't think so), we need to amend the language or the internal NCC procedure to facilitate larger allocations. I

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

n that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s. -Cynthia On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, wrote: Hi all, After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking o

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

allocation requests from the IANA. Elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > On Oct 28, 2020, at 05:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > Note that I'm not intending to change an

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" escribió: > >JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: >> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more >> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it*

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

ink the we should ignore the stockpiling? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for

[address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

Hi all, After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion. The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the

Re: [address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

Hi Hans, I was talking in general, not just in this region. Also, they need be bound to the policies, which is not the case in all the regions. As said, those are separate problems, not the same in all the RIRs, but closely related and also related to the transfers as a possible way

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments have legacy status, not IP addresses themselves

Hi David, I never though on this from your perspective, and I think you’re right. However, the point about M it is a bit more complex. If it is just a pure “renaming” of the company I will agree with you, but there are cases, where is not really a new “version of the organization”, in

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

ORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I agree with Shane here. > > We shall correct mistakes ASAP. Legacy was a mistake, just because we didn't have the RIR system before, nothing else. It was not a conscious decision, nobody understood at that time that Internet

Re: [address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

El 21/10/20 12:16, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" escribió: > On 21 Oct 2020, at 10:07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > It is not fair that legacy holders are not bind to policies and services (and their cost) from th

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

I agree with Shane here. We shall correct mistakes ASAP. Legacy was a mistake, just because we didn't have the RIR system before, nothing else. It was not a conscious decision, nobody understood at that time that Internet as a "global" thing will need those resources and will become scarce.

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

Hi Erik, Regarding your response on reciprocity: If we do that in AFRINIC, then, there is no reciprocity with ARIN, which is the bigger “donor”. I already tried several models, for both LACNIC and AFRINIC, and they didn’t work out. Finally, making a full reciprocal proposal in LACNIC

[address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard

After my comment in the Addressing Policy meeting, I decided to go ahead with this email, maybe it can a provocation for some inputs in the open mic ... Note that this text is from my AFRINIC proposal (to make it quick now), so disregard parts that may not correctly matches the RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 79 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes

Hi Petrit, all, I just read them and look fine to me. Thanks! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/5/20 15:12, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Petrit Hasani" escribió: Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 79 have now been

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Review Phase Extended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

nd regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC > On 13 Jan 2020, at 22:18, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Hi Abdullah, > > I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a hard ti

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Review Phase Extended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

Hi Abdullah, I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a hard time to understand the text of the rest of the policy text if we don’t rely in a very good set of definitions. However, I just noticed something that could be removed: “[Note: some of these

Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions

@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -Original Message- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid > Cc:

Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions

Not sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" escribió: > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > My point was al

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

sions. Some folks go away from the thread doing so, instead of facilitating participation, or if I can say, even inclusiveness. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 12:04, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 01/11/2019 10:52: >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 11:52, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribió: Jordi, Ah, the Spanish Inquisition reference is a Month Python reference.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non-native English speakers. And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of course, agree which all the barbarities done at that time. Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

Hi David, Responding below, in-line. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/10/19 7:01, "address-policy-wg en nombre de David Farmer" escribió: On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:01 AM Sander Steffann wrote: Hi, > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

, of course and this is just part of the process to improve our policies. El 17/7/19 20:15, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:01:44PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > We, as a community, should look for the benefit of

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ionale why they implemented this kind of policy? Maybe they have some strong arguments we are missing here? Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > address-policy-wg wrote

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

06:48:46PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > -> I don't think this is "delicate" at all. Nobody is being *forced* to do that. If you have legacy, you can do transfers outside the system and nobody can oppose to that. However, please read the complete e

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi, El 17/7/19 18:08, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" escribió: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, at 14:02, Tore Anderson wrote: > In any case, and to be perfectly honest, this rationale reads to like > petty jealousy to me - «I can't do X with my RIPE ALLOCATED PA, so

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

oering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via >> address-policy-wg wrote: >>> Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing >>&g

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ering" escribió: Hi, On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing so. I don't think that's good. If this is the main argument ("I changed thi

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

I didn't said anything about retroactivity: - Holders of legacy that don't transfer them, aren't affected. - Transfers already done (from legacy resources) aren't affected The only affected ones are "new" transfers (if the policy reach consensus), and is only affecting the ones that get the

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Tore, El 15/7/19 14:02, "Tore Anderson" escribió: * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > -> Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks bound to rules/policies, others not), there is a problem. ... > -> Because is not

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

;address-policy-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg" wrote: Hi Tore, I think my previus email just explained it. The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem (as a community) by not bringing into the system

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Tore, El 15/7/19 12:26, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson" escribió: * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > I think my previus email just explained it. Not really... > The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

think so, we could keep growing the non-legacy resources, while other regions get "cleaned". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 15/7/19 10:05, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson" escribió: * Gert Doering > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, J

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Jim, El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" escribió: > On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet, and it is surprising to me that we are the

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Sander, I was referring to inter-RIR transfers, sorry not having been more explicit. I understand that the previous policies were only intra-RIR. The actual ones are both intra and inter. I don't think it is a matter of respect previous rights, because in that case, when we do *any* policy

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hope this explains a bit. Regards, Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 13 jul. 2019 om 14:49 heeft JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg het volgende geschreven: Hi Gert, If the received of the transfer is already bound by contracts with RIPE, he is the one that wil

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

jordipalet El 13/7/19 14:43, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > If legacy holders, want to transfers those resources and escape from

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:04:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > My personal view but looking for the good of the community is that it is better to get rid ASAP of the "legacy" status for as much resources we can,

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resou

[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi all, I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred. I don't really recall if this was discussed during the relevant

[address-policy-wg] informal discussion about removing 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site

Hi all, As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as part of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved consensus on removing the equivalent text. ARIN has also

Re: [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

Hi all, I've already drafted a policy proposal to make a change on this, but if I got it correctly, the chairs were believing that it was not needed, so I never officially submitted it. I'm happy to submit it again. It may be interesting for all the list participants to read my policy

[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

Same here, sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, a bit overloaded with daily work, but just read all the thread, and I'm supporting it. Further I can add some data. I've participated in APNIC 47, and prop-127, which is mention in this proposal, reached consensus. I've also discussed

[address-policy-wg] 2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")

Sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, but just read all the thread and the impact analysis, and I'm supporting as well. Regards, Jordi ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

Re: [address-policy-wg] PA ??? life after death

Even very low-cost chipsets for CEs, such as Mediatek, Broadcom, Cavium/Marvell, etc., can offload IPv6 as well. Sometimes is not the hardware, but the firmware not taking advantage of it. For IPv6, unless you want pure dual-stack, not the right transition for what is needed now

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

tions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for that server, that's wh

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

And I agree with all what you said! I just want to make sure that we all are in the same page. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 15:10 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg Sent: 17. tammikuuta 2019 14:13 To: address-policy-wg Subject: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification Hi all, As

[address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Hi all, As you know, I've been working on different versions of a clarification to 2016-04 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04). This proposal allows a single IP to be sub-assigned, and the author explained (not just in the policy proposal text, but also in the

[address-policy-wg] proposed text for Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy (policy proposal 2018-02)

Hi all, Unfortunately, I've not received inputs on my question about what we want to be allowed in IPv6 PI, but as I'm working on this in other regions, got inputs in another region, which I think I can translate to this text: ** 2.6. Assign To "assign" means to delegate address space

[address-policy-wg] What we want to be acceptable in IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI?

Hi all, Trying to look into my presentation today from a higher-level perspective ... What is the expected usage of IPv4 and IPv6 PI? It should be the same or different? Do we want to use IPv6 PI as an entry point for people, without any restrictions, to start providing services and then they

Re: [address-policy-wg] [CFP] ACM/IEEE IPSN 2019 in CPSWeek

May be talking directly with ACM/IEEE, so they tell their members to respect the AUP, and if they don't react, just block any message that has IEEE (telling IEEE that we will be forced to do so). Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

echa: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI On 2018 May 19 (Sat) at 18:11:39 +0200 (+0200), Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: :Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg:

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

;address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Am 19.05.2018 um 12:07 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: > My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI". [Jordi] You

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

om /32 and sign LIR contract). Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] propos

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

g...@space.net> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 12:17 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINE

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

er become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea I think. Jan Hugo On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

2018, 20:37 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting Hi there, on 16.05.2018 17:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > So, to make sure I understood

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

unto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: > Responding below, in-line. *PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

icy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi, > PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing. They are not. Please, enumerate what are the differences

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

, 16 de mayo de 2018, 22:06 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: > […] > I believe we have several problems that my p

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

ARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI in-line Regards, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Below, in-line. &g

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

unto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence, I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ vi

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

artin Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

, 16:47 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting On 16.05.2018 14:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been asked to state what is

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

st regards Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf

[address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I've been asked to state what is the problem. I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems I see: 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)". To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an

[address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I tried to find the "mismatch" that Peter mention today in the meeting about this proposal text, however was unable to. So, if Peter or somebody else can point to anything more specific, the authors will be happy to provide thougths for alternatives to the mismatching text. Thanks!

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Hi all, This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format. So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another,

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

cha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 6:52 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> [2018-05-02 14:26]: > Note that in the case of RIP

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > ???As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. Speaking as a long-

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

dress-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 On 2018 May 02 (Wed) at 07:25:12 -0500 (-0500), JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: :Hi all, : :As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy

[address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

Hi all, As you probably know, ARIN amended some time ago their IPv6 policy proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. In the context of another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. I'm

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

;address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Moin, am 17.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: I've also suggested the same text in the other 4 RIRs with equivalent policy pro

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

ication in IPv6 Policy) Hi Jordi, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:57:20PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >I've created an "online diff" so you can compare the actual text, with my proposal: > >https://www.diffchecker.com/SMXYO2rc

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <m...@rfc2324.org> Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 17:14 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Hi all, As you probably remember, during the discussion of the recently implemented 2016-04, I complained that we should not approve a policy proposal with a wording that creates (in my opinion), discrepancies between the NCC impact analysis and the policy text. I was suggested that it can

Re: [address-policy-wg] Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8

Hi Janos, I will be in favor of this policy proposal if it means that those LIRs are going to contribute to gym cost for end-users (non-LIRs). Have you thought about that? Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Janos

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Gert, all, I agree with your summary, and also understand the point that is better to have "something" now and improve it. In fact, yesterday I expressed the same view in anti-abuse, even against my previous opinion that we should do it "right" in a single "step". Consequently, in view of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Thanks Marco! To make it easy, I've prepared an online diff. https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Red color is actual text. Green is the proposed one. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Marco Schmidt

  1   2   >