Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

I still support the proposal as-is. The proposed change does not weaken any data that is in the database, and in fact may allow it to be more obvious that these address ranges are used by end users rather than be unclear what their status is. Furthermore, I will state that Denis' objections are

Re: [address-policy-wg] @EXT: Inputs/observations from EUROPOLon proposal 2023-04

On 2023 Dec 15 (Fri) at 14:28:13 +0100 (+0100), Tore Anderson wrote: :To that end, you might want to submit a policy proposal that would :clarify for the RIPE NCC what the correct implementation should be, so :that their procedures are brought in line with your expectations. If :you do that, we

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

On 2023 Nov 29 (Wed) at 16:41:14 +0100 (+0100), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:28:04PM +0100, Peter Hessler wrote: :> I propose that we define this to be a CIDR assignment and they put in :> the number of bits of the netmask, so the above example would be :> assign

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Hi everyone, I mentioned this during the WG session but want to bring it up on the mailing list, what is the definition of assignment-size. In the IPv6 implementation of AGGREGATED-BY-LIR there is an assignment-size attribute, which is proposed to be optional for the IPv4 version. >From the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for?

Denis, Yes, you are correct that that signing your emails saying you are co-chair of DB tells the reader that you are speaking on behalf of the working group. That may or may not be your intention, but that is how people are reading it. No longer signing your emails "co-chair" would be a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

On 2023 Sep 11 (Mon) at 19:14:05 +0200 (+0200), denis walker wrote: :On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 18:33, Peter Hessler wrote: :> :> On 2023 Sep 11 (Mon) at 16:09:58 + (+), Brian Storey wrote: :> :Does this not contradict other purposes / objectives of the registry, including the p

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 New Policy Proposal (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

On 2023 Sep 11 (Mon) at 16:09:58 + (+), Brian Storey wrote: :Does this not contradict other purposes / objectives of the registry, including the principles of registering public networks or am I missing something? : This behaves the same as the IPv6 version, which has not had this

[address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments

I support this proposal. I initially was confused on the second clause of the new text for section 3.3, but it became clear when I read the entire context within the new proposal. -peter -- Weinberg's First Law: Progress is made on alternate Fridays. -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-02 Review Phase (IPv4 Waiting List Implementation)

On 2019 May 12 (Sun) at 11:56:02 +0200 (+0200), Hansen, Christoffer wrote: : :On 07/05/2019 12:57, Randy Bush wrote: :> On 06/05/2019 13:10, Marco Schmidt wrote: :>> Policy proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation" :>> is now in the Review Phase. :> :> we are here to do what we can to

Re: [address-policy-wg] Clarification of policy requirements for contact information

On 2019 Apr 09 (Tue) at 11:28:19 +0200 (+0200), Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: :On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:16 AM Peter Hessler wrote: : :> :> Concrete suggestion: :> I think that person objects should have the address and phone attributes :> be changed from mandatory to optional. :> :

Re: [address-policy-wg] Clarification of policy requirements for contact information

At my current job we have a single Org object and a shared mntner object, and each employee within the network group has their own person and mntner objects to avoid sharing passwords and for auditability. As is obvious, this can grow quite quickly even for a small LIR. LIR person accounts all

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

I support this proposal. 1) the intent of the last /8 policy is for new participants to go from 0 to not-0 IPv4 addresses. While not-0 IPv4 addresses may not be enough for a limited number of business cases, it *is* enough to bootstrap a company (e.g. website, dns, email, nat64, etc). 2) When

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

On 2019 Feb 05 (Tue) at 08:53:21 +0100 (+0100), ga...@nethinks.com wrote: :That is an option. But in order to not punish late entries to the :market, it should also include a fixed timeframe when EVERYBODY has to :stop using v4 (at least on the public Internet) ... I don't see any :technical

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: :> My proposal is NOT to stop IPv6 PI, : :Alternative facts? The title says "to remove IPv6 PI". : :> As I explained already, the intent is not to

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 proposal in order to make sure that the allocations to LIRs are aligned to the nibble boundary. : :In the context of

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

On 2017 Nov 25 (Sat) at 20:00:51 +0100 (+0100), Gert Doering wrote: :Dear AP WG, : :On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:08:07PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: :> Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" is now in the Review Phase. :[..] :> We encourage you to read the proposal, impact

Re: [address-policy-wg] clarification on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (ripe-682) Section 2.0

On 2017 May 23 (Tue) at 14:35:01 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 02:10:06PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: :> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-ripe-ncc-service-region :> :> I saw this restriction: :> :> &

[address-policy-wg] seperate subject, because people can't follow directions

On 2016 Oct 20 (Thu) at 12:38:55 +0200 (+0200), Netskin NOC wrote: :On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote: :>This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: :>of 2016-03. :> :>Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try. : :I know and thus didn't start a

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

Ciprian You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour on this list. Nobody, and certainly NOT Gert or anyone else on a mailing list deserves

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

Hi Clarification question. Are you requesting that non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the equivalent size in a single continuous IPv4 block that does not match the previously issued IPv4 addresses, or do you want to take continuous IPv4 blocks and combine them? On 2016 Sep 22 (Thu) at

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

On 2016 Jun 20 (Mon) at 10:04:33 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes :to the IPv4 policy +1 -- The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. --

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

Implementation detail: many operating systems hard-code that range as invalid network space. The effort to make it available would be _less_ than getting everyone else in the world upgraded to IPv6. On 2016 Jun 11 (Sat) at 21:45:03 +0300 (+0300), NTX NOC wrote: :Dear all, : :As we see ISPs and

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

On 2016 May 11 (Wed) at 14:42:02 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: :On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 08:53, Gert Doering wrote: : :> Would you have preferred the ARIN way? "Oops, we have reached :> exhaustion, nothing left, good buy to new entrants"? : :My understanding is that ARIN is not yet

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

This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off some years ago. You can still get PI IPv6 space, however. On 2016 May 10 (Tue) at 13:12:58 +0100 (+0100), Aled Morris wrote: :I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address :space. : :Perhaps

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

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 scritto: :>Hello Ehsan, :> :>>we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . :>>https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 :>thank

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

On 2016 Apr 15 (Fri) at 10:41:56 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 05:23:11PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote: :> The other objection (Jim) seems to be "we should be all-out promoting IPv6" :> which I think is a laudable goal but unfortunately when used against :>

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

a lot of recent new entrants. :> :> Of course we are all working on introducing IPv6 but I think we need this policy as it complements the allocation from 185/8 for new LIRs with a fair mechanism for nurturing LIRs who have filled their initial allocation. :> :> Aled :> :>

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

While I appreciate that there are more restricions on who is eligable to receive new allocations, I am still opposed to this proposal for the simple reason of "it depletes the IPv4 pool faster, and causes problems for new entrants". -- Anybody can win, unless there happens to be a second entry.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On 2015 Nov 12 (Thu) at 18:13:56 +0200 (+0200), Saku Ytti wrote: :On 12 November 2015 at 09:53, Gert Doering wrote: :> Just to play the devil's advocate, who is to evaluate and understand these :> "cannot be satisfied" reasons? RIPE IPRAs are typically not BGP experts. :> :> Not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On 2015 Nov 10 (Tue) at 04:30:22 + (+), Aftab Siddiqui wrote: :Just for my understanding, is there any demand for 16b ASN from the :community? There is a technical case when attempting to use communities in the : format. There is not yet a 32:32b community available, even in extended

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

As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8 policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable IPv4 space. While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough space,

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

On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote: :https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 >From the proposed text: 5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is

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

On 2015 Sep 14 (Mon) at 10:41:44 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: :On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:03, Tore Anderson wrote: :> > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22) :> None of the above. My preference is to maintain the status quo - no :> additional allocations. I do not quite see