[address-policy-wg] off-topic postings in the AP WG mailing list

> On 17 Oct 2023, at 10:18, Kai 'wusel' Siering via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > All the prior talk about the RIPE DB doesn't belong here, either. If changes > to the (operation or design of the) RIPE DB require changes to Address > Policies, let's discuss about it here. Indeed. >

[address-policy-wg] EU sanctions against Russia

> Why RIPE NCC ignores EU sanctions against Russia? Which specific EU sanctions do you think the NCC is ignoring? -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg

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

> On 1 Mar 2022, at 07:50, Mathias Westerlund > wrote: > > However i still feel there is the need to discuss and check what actions RIPE > is supposed to take under the sanctions by EU. I'm not so sure. If the Dutch courts or government require a certain course of action, there's little

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

> On 1 Mar 2022, at 07:21, Mathias Westerlund > wrote: > > While i fully support ukraine in these tough times and can easily say i will > do what i can against russia, i would like to remind you that there is a > difference between talking about lawful sanctions and us implementing them >

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

> On 28 Jan 2022, at 11:20, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > How about giving the RIPE NCC discretion to make sensible decisions about the > corner case ‘scientific experiment’ after getting advice from a panel of > scientists? > Or delegating the decisions to such a panel? This would be a

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

> On 27 Jan 2022, at 17:19, Gert Doering wrote: > > I'd strongly object to such a proposal. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit:

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

> On 8 Dec 2021, at 14:12, Rick Bakker wrote: > > (e.g. just look at "Network Space Provider LTD" in the British company > register). All are/were held by a single UBO. Companies House (the UK register of companies) says all of them were dissolved on Nov 16th - about three weeks ago. This

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

> On 7 Dec 2021, at 17:25, denis walker wrote: > > I am sure some back door dealings can be arranged to keep > the LIRs active that have the allocations registered and obfuscate the > fee payments to confuse the RIPE NCC. Have companies developed some > sense of morality in recent years?

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

> On 7 Dec 2021, at 14:56, Gert Doering wrote: > > My suggestion would be along the lines what was proposed on the APWG > meeting already - earmark these /24s as non-transferrable, ever. +1 WFM signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -- To unsubscribe from this mailing

[address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair

On 9 Apr 2021, at 15:03, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote: > >> And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to >> accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. > > That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side. Sorry Piotr, strong

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > What I don't think is right is that we bypass the justified need. The notion of justified need makes no sense for IPv6. An ISP might give my mum a /64 or a /80. There’s no way she can demonstrate a *need*

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Exactly, that’s the point, there is no incentive – the only incentive is > stockpiling, just in case IPv6 becomes scarse and may create a problem like > the lack of IPv4, even if this takes 30 years, or 100

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

> On 28 Oct 2020, at 13:18, Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > This is not a real issue, this is just trying to add more bureaucracy for no > reason. +1 IMO this proposal is an utterly pointless and unnecessary make-work exercise. There’s no justification for it.

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more IPv4 > allocations, *even if you don't use/need it* you can get (and thus stockpile) > IPv6 *at no extra cost*. > > I clearly think this

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

> On 28 Oct 2020, at 12:08, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > [...] >> Do we need some text about "recovery if not announced and used" ? > > tl;dr: no. +1

[address-policy-wg] RIPE policy making

> On 21 Oct 2020, at 13:10, ripedenis--- via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > It is not only address policy they can veto. Correct me if I am mistaken, but > I understood they can veto any policy they don't like. Anyone is free to participate in RIPE policy making. Nobody has a veto though

[address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

> 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 the RIRs the same way as non-legacy. Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other far more expensive cost

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

> On 21 Oct 2020, at 08:17, Shane Kerr wrote: > > If there is a rationale for any of the RIPE policies, then that rationale > should apply uniformly. ONLY to the resources that were issued under those policies. Frankly, it’s about time to stop obsessing about policies (for IPv4?? sheesh!!)

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

> On 20 Oct 2020, at 19:30, ripedenis--- via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Legacy space is a pain and should be normalised at every opportunity. Because > of the market this has become a huge financial asset. If the holders want to > cash it in, once it is sold it should lose this

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: ASNs of organizations in reported IPv4 transfers

> On 6 Jan 2020, at 16:09, Giotsas, Vasileios wrote: > > I tried to map the organization names to ASNs using WHOIS but I couldn’t find > a match for about 50% of the organizations involved in transfers. What is the > rationale behind not listing the AS number? Because it's not rational or

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

> On 1 Nov 2019, at 12:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Diversity? Your email contained 1 word of signal and ~1000 words of noise. Please try to be more considerate when you post.

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

> On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any specific > participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a mention to > "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

> On 13 Aug 2019, at 00:17, Randy Bush wrote: > > back when ip address assignment moved from sri to netsol, i applied for, > and mark gave me, a /33 of ipv4 space. i probably have the record of > it, but chances of finding it in my mail archive are miniscule. Randy, think how much all that

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

> On 9 Aug 2019, at 13:41, Gert Doering wrote: > > Also, you are certainly all aware that if we do another version of this > proposal with changes and a new impact analysis, we'll have run out of > IPv4 before this can be implemented (thus: no extra address space for > IXPs). All the more

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

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false dilemma > here. I'm sorry Piotr, I strongly disagree. The idea that was being proposed imposes retroactive conditions on legacy address

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

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:16, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg > wrote: > >> >> I belive the community should focus strongly on an accurate registry as the >> main principle. > > One should remember that "the main" is distinct from "the only". Except when those other policies detract

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

> On 16 Jul 2019, at 09:46, Gert Doering wrote: > > I could also not see anyone speak up in a supportive way, so I'd consider > this "sufficiently discussed, and no support to go for a formal proposal". I agree. Let's close this discussion and move on to the next Bad Idea.

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

> On 15 Jul 2019, at 13:02, Tore Anderson wrote: > > I don't believe this kind of policy making is good for the community. I > suspect the opposite is true, by turning legacy holders off from engaging > with us. Keep in mind that they are under no obligation to do so. +1

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI justification requirements

> On 27 Feb 2019, at 01:09, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote: > > I got really annoyed by the way the NCC entered spanish-inquisition-mode I would have hoped that went away along with the dregs of v4.

[address-policy-wg] irrelevant and meaningless Subject header goes here

> On 8 Feb 2019, at 15:34, Gert Doering wrote: > > "usage based" is "you pay for the amount of work and other costs you create > at the NCC", which is about what we have now. I think we need a new thread or two. What’s now being discussed is far removed from 2019-02.

Re: [address-policy-wg] can deadbeat LIRs reverse IPv4 exhaustion?

> On 7 Feb 2019, at 12:12, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > In fact, many of the allocations we are currently making have gone through > such a recycling process. > We expect that we will continue to receive IPv4 addresses due to LIR closures > and other reasons for some time after the current IPv4

[address-policy-wg] can deadbeat LIRs reverse IPv4 exhaustion?

> On 7 Feb 2019, at 07:59, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Even when the pools reach ZERO, if 1000 LIRs stop paying fees (and that's > only one example/route), the "runout" will be temporarily reverted, and > handing out IPv4 addresses will be again, in theory, possible.

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

> On 6 Feb 2019, at 09:39, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > d) The length of the waiting list and other practicalities should be > secondary considerations after these principles above. For instance, the > RIPE NCC can always recover the costs incurred by the process from those > using it. That

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

On 6 Feb 2019, at 09:39, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > a) It is not tenable for the RIPE NCC to stop allocating IPv4 addresses > as long as it has blocks that are useful to route packets. In principle, yes. In practice, no. There will come a point where it will be more bother than it’s worth to

[address-policy-wg] Bad Ideas in Address Policy

On 5 Feb 2019, at 12:25, Alexey Galaev wrote: > > Let check how many IPv4 not announce by BGP IP addresses can be used without them being routed on the public Internet. It’s also possible to make BGP announcements that tell lies. It’s not feasible for an RIR to recover address space from an

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

> On 4 Feb 2019, at 14:20, ga...@nethinks.com wrote: > >> But how long does that discussion last? Perhaps 5-10 years from now we’ll be >> debating policies on how the NCC allocates /30s or /31s of v4. :-) > > No, because (hopefully) the prefix filters on the v4 Internet will never EVER >

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

> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:58, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > The question before us is: What is the minimum useful allocation? Well yes Daniel. But how long does that discussion last? Perhaps 5-10 years from now we’ll be debating policies on how the NCC allocates /30s or /31s of v4. :-) Even

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

> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:27, Sander Steffann wrote: > > It seems you misunderstand the proposal. This policy agrees with you that > /22s should be allocated until RIPE NCC runs out. It is about what happens > afterwards. We create a waiting list with either /22 or /24 allocation size. > > -

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

> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:14, Francis Brosnan Blázquez > wrote: > > Current policy is a good compromise: it focus on allocating to LIRs > that assign and use address space ...until no more allocation can be > done. +1 I do not support 2019-02.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation

> On 18 Dec 2018, at 10:38, Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Look Aleksey, the RIPE NCC is a not for profit, membership based > organization, the RIPE NCC doesn't sell IP space, you get IP space from the > RIPE NCC by being a member in the RIPE NCC. > > Also, when they

Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy violation

> On 18 Dec 2018, at 10:30, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > I think the NCC wants to have Monopoly for IP selling and doesn't want to > devide profit with anyone. You might well think that. However that doesn't mean it's true. And in this case, you are completely and utterly wrong. Perhaps

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

Janos, this policy proposal needs very careful consideration. However I think detailed discussion should wait until there’s wider adoption of RFC1437.

Re: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 14:21, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > > The real meat of proposing a GIR is saying "let's have a new institution, > that has > > - THIS structure > - THIS funding model > - THIS secretariat/support/NCC equivalent > - THIS type of PDP > - THIS model for who

Re: [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"

This is a remarkably bad idea. It’s also likely to be unworkable. First, it’s not clear what problem (if any) this proposed new RIR would solve. Where’s the use case(s)? What are the requirements and why aren’t these being met by the existing RIR system? Each RIR produces address allocation

Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

> On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:41, Gert Doering wrote: > > Changing the PDP itself is not something we can do here in AP, though - that > is something the plenary needs to agree, as the PDP governs all working > groups. Indeed. It will almost certainly be far quicker and much less

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

> On 19 Jan 2018, at 11:08, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > In my opinion there are 3 points to clarify: ... irrelevant points snipped ... PLEASE put those comments in a different thread which makes it clear you're discussing detail about

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 11:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > My view is, in addition to that, if the contradictions are discovered during > the PDP process, consensus can’t be declared until we can address them. Nope. If the WG decides that

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

> On 16 Jan 2018, at 11:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > > That's because I don't think that "rough consensus" is primarily about > how many supporters a proposal has, I think it's about primarily about > the nature and quality of the objection. Indeed. And how those objections

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Then, my reading is that EVERY policy proposal can always reach consensus, is > just a matter of finding enough folks (or virtual voices) that register into > the mailing list and

[address-policy-wg] common sense and pragmatism

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:28, Sander Steffann wrote: > > In RIPE the chairs are allowed to use common sense and their own judgement > when chairing a working group. Please don't try to make rules for everything, > we're not lawyers, we're people trying to get work done in

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

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 13:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > Hi Marco, > > I feel then contradictory this: ... detailed nit-picking of policy proposal deleted ... Jordi, we're past the point where substantive discussion of 2016-04 takes

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

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > I think the PDP has not been followed correctly. In that case Jordi, you can use the PDP to raise those concerns. Though I think you're actually complaining about Gerd's

[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

> On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > > Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no > objections Jordi, whatever definition of consensus someone chooses is up to them. That doesn't mean

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

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 12:11, n...@kwaoo.net wrote: > > Today at $work, there is nothing planned to get rid of IPv4. Why should > we ? Buying some is less expensive than working on hybrid solution. So what? How could a change in the current v4 address policy possibly change that behaviour? If

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

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:58, n...@kwaoo.net wrote: > > Maybe the right path is to find some way to allocate those addresses to > real new entrants only Come up with a viable definition “new real entrant”. It’s not as easy as you seem to think it is. > Perhaps limitations like only one

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

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 08:08, Randy Bush wrote: > > oppressing the proletariat did not work out too randy I’m not sure randiness was affected either way by the oppression of the proletariat. :-) Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

Re: [address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 10:29, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > > Requiring an ASN to be visible on the public Internet is a non-starter IMHO. +1. There is no comparable requirement in any of the RIRs which demand LIRs make their IP address allocations visible on the Internet. I

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

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > >> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address >> policy WG. > > Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more > thankless by the day. +100. I’m stunned beyond

[address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but > with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. In your (utterly flawed) opinion. I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

> On 21 Jun 2016, at 10:20, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > The post-exhaustion /22 comes with a fee that is equivalent to the LIR fee. > If a LIR contains one post-exhaustion /22, then this fee is waived. It’s up to the NCC membership to make decisions about fees, not this

[address-policy-wg] restricting policy proposals

> On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:50, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > How does one go about restricting future policy proposals? How about the NCC’s Policy Development Officer puts bad or poorly judged ones in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet hidden in an abandoned toilet with a

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

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 14:05, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > IPv6 is not the answer for everything no matter how manytime you repeat that More or bigger IPv4 allocations from the NCC are not the answer no matter how often you repeat that either. So what are you doing to

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

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied wrote: > > Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more > people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort that’s being wasted

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

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 11:55, Payam Poursaied wrote: > > why not to create and enforce > policies which return the > not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond > itions-change o the free pool? Feel free to write up and submit a policy proposal

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

> On 16 Jun 2016, at 16:03, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > And will lose his money So what? Whenever a business ceases trading, it almost always does that because it ran out of money. It can’t be the NCC’s fault that an LIR closes or goes bust. And while that LIR was in

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

> On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:53, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > What if some one opens business, become a LIR (pay money for it) then > understand that he need to close his business? Same as what’s supposed to happen today. They return the space to the NCC.

[address-policy-wg] comments on the revised 2016-03

> On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:14, Remco van Mook wrote: > I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not > just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different > from the first version. Remco, all, I think further tweaks

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

> On 6 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Elvis Daniel Velea <el...@v4escrow.net> wrote: > > Hi, > On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >>> On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulga...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Why are we talkin

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

> On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > Why are we talking about 185./8 only? We are not. You might be though. :-) Current policy applies to ALL IPv4 address space held by the NCC. Or that may be obtained by the NCC somehow, say because it was returned

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

> On 17 May 2016, at 13:08, Remco van Mook wrote: > > The proposal doesn't aim to change a lot about the *intended* goals of the > last /8 policy - instead, it tries to clarify the current policy and lock it > down against creative interpretations. > > ... > > Let's

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

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:52, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to existing LIRs? It has been that way ever since SRI first started doling out Class A, B and C blocks in the 1980s. No matter what the prevailing policy might be,

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

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:01, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > so that we don't spend years wasting time squabbling about the dregs sitting > at the bottom of the ipv4 allocation barrel. However... our mission, if we choose to accept it, could be to waste time squabbling over these

Re: [address-policy-wg] R: making progress with 2015-05

> On 11 May 2016, at 09:29, Enrico Diacci wrote: > > When an LIR can claim to have reached 4 (or 5) stars of RIPEness for IPv6 > may require an additional /22 (if you do not already have space equivalent > to a /20) stating its reasons for the new allocation with a project and >

[address-policy-wg] making progress with 2015-05

> On 11 May 2016, at 08:53, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Sander noticed there are people here that are confirming that a change is > accepted and someone else noticed that 2015-05 can be re-written or > re-invented to meet better the tasks > You as a chair should accept this and

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

> On 10 May 2016, at 13:16, Peter Hessler wrote: > > This was called "Provider Independent" No it wasn’t. RIPE NCC has never sold IP addresses of any sort. LIRs pay membership fees to the NCC. In return they get certain services. One of those services is allocation of

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

> On 9 May 2016, at 15:16, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > >> 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

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

> On 9 May 2016, at 11:37, Fabio Zannicolò - Voix s.r.l. > wrote: > > Today small companies have competitiveness problems due to lack of IPv4 > resources. 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

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

> On 19 Apr 2016, at 23:21, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > I also see new LIRs beeing set up to sell the space for profit. That’s regrettable and I wish it stopped. [Well it will when we run out of v4... :-)] But if we could stop this, I suppose those “bad actors” would just

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 16:35, Adrian Pitulac wrote: > > How on earth did you reach the conclusion that 185/8 will be depleted in 10 > months? I didn’t. You’re putting words in my mouth. I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee the free pool

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer" > equals no business. And these other markets are either dead or dying because there is no more IPv4. Some might survive if

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

> On 16 Apr 2016, at 10:31, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:01, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to >> fritter away scarce IPv4 res

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

> On 14 Apr 2016, at 17:23, Aled Morris wrote: > > The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6” I said no such thing. There are a number of ways for organisations to deal with IPv4 exhaustion. These include (but are not limited to)

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

> On 14 Apr 2016, at 15:34, Aled Morris wrote: > > I agree with the proposal because it makes it possible for recent entrants > into the market to grow. I strongly disagree with the proposal because it will encourage LIRs to fritter away scarce IPv4 resources

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

> On 16 Nov 2015, at 11:42, David - ProfesionalHosting > wrote: > > While 100% implemented IPv6 on all ISPs will be many many years, as we are > both ipv4 blocked and need more, we can not wait for this to happen. We can > only buy at speculative prices. Tough.

[address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran

On 21 Oct 2015, at 13:40, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. Solving the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On 20 Oct 2015, at 16:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote: > We should stick to the approach that allows for new market entrants, and I > don't see any value in artificially shortening this period. +100

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On 20 Oct 2015, at 22:18, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 23:02, Randy Bush wrote: >> please put your money where your mouth is and run ipv6 only, including >> smtp, ..., all external and internal connectivity. > > And If I do it, do I

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On 20 Oct 2015, at 23:38, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6 > services" a good enough reason? It is in my book. There's nothing stopping you from writing up and submitting a policy proposal which does that. The reasons for

Re: [address-policy-wg] Promote the use of IRC

On 12 Aug 2015, at 15:46, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) d.ba...@tvt-datos.es wrote: If enough people join, it can be an official communication channel. No. It can *never* be an official communication channel (whatever you mean by that). The only communication that matters for WG business

[address-policy-wg] A failure to communicate

On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:04, Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right? No, no and no. The WG made (or is making) the decision in the usual manner: by consensus. The WG's co-chairs are responsible for determining

Re: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers

On 1 Jul 2015, at 12:13, Shahin Gharghi sha...@gharghi.ir wrote: And I think you'd better play fair. You are using your power as a chair to get this proposal accepted. This is utter nonsense. I asked a question and if you have an answer for that, tell me. People will be able to transfer

Re: [address-policy-wg] A failure to communicate

On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: So do we have real consensus? For this policy proposal, I think we do. Though it's not down to me to make that decision. Jan Ingvoldstat has just explained where you are going wrong and what to do about that. Short

[address-policy-wg] Consensus

On 12 Jun 2015, at 09:10, h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of them) You're wrong. The generally accepted definition of consensus is lack of

Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: No, I am not questioning his integrity, So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.] This thread serves no useful

[address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC

On 10 Jun 2015, at 12:38, Storch Matei ma...@profisol.ro wrote: For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote - really? RIPE has no concept of membership and therefore cannot vote. It works by

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:17, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote: What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this means that 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may not be sockpuppets) decide how

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:21, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote: This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4 for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4 resellers who in turn can protect their prices. It does not. Nobody's definitely forced

Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:26, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wilh...@boeddinghaus.de wrote: I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the address-policy WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will

[address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming

On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No. So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or