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

Hi, On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:34:28AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > I do not intend to submit an appeal unless this policy proposal moves > forward to Review Phase.. so I am waiting for the decision of the > proposer - as the website says :) So we have two participants now trying to

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

Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:40:43PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > it says awaiting decision from _proposer_ and not from WG Chairs. That > is why I was asking the proposer. This is not totally clear in the label: the decision is made jointly by proposer and WG chair(s). The proposer

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

Hi Sander, On 7/22/16 1:41 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: Hi Elvis, I've had easier discussion to judge, and less repetitive-nonsensical ones. it says awaiting decision from proposer and not from WG Chairs. That is why I was asking the proposer. Just for clarity, this is what the PDP says:

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

Hi Elvis, >> I've had easier discussion to judge, and less repetitive-nonsensical ones. > > it says awaiting decision from proposer and not from WG Chairs. That is why I > was asking the proposer. Just for clarity, this is what the PDP says: > [RIPE-642 section 2.2] > At the end of the

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

that there was no consensus - and that conclusion is not his to make. So that's what Gert responded to. Remco Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: "Riccardo Gori" <rg...@wirem.net> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extend

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

Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:14:24PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > just wondering why the page still says Awaiting Decision from Proposer - > *15 July 2016* > > Since you are around to respond, any idea when you you take a decision? The discussion was... complicated. This needs some

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

that there was no consensus - and that conclusion is not his to make. So that's what Gert responded to. Remco Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: "Riccardo Gori" <rg...@wirem.net> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion

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

and that conclusion is not his to make. So that's what Gert responded to. Remco Sent from my HTC - Reply message - From: "Riccardo Gori" <rg...@wirem.net> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 J

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

g@ripe.net> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Date: Thu, Jul 21, 2016 20:29 I see he said "I think". I think list exists because everyone should be left free to express his own opinion, that's not tak

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

I see he said "I think". I think list exists because everyone should be left free to express his own opinion, that's not taking decision. regards Riccardo Il 21/07/2016 20:07, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:40:38PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: I think, it is time

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

I just tell the fact, no more :) 2016-07-21 21:13 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering : > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:10:15PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> I just looked at >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals >> no more. > > It is

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

Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:10:15PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > I just looked at > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals > no more. It is time to make a *decision*, this is true. Whether or not the decision is to withdraw or not, or whether

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

I just looked at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals no more. 2016-07-21 21:07 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering : > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:40:38PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: >> I think, it is time to withdraw this proposal due

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

Hi. I think, it is time to withdraw this proposal due to we haven't reached the consensus. 2016-06-23 8:43 GMT+03:00 Riccardo Gori : > Hi Tore, Hi Elvis, > I opened the ticket and I can confirm Tore clarification on that. > > Il 17/06/2016 08:09, Riccardo Gori ha scritto: > >

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

Hi Tore, Hi Elvis, I opened the ticket and I can confirm Tore clarification on that. Il 17/06/2016 08:09, Riccardo Gori ha scritto: Hi, Il 17/06/2016 07:41, Tore Anderson ha scritto: * Elvis Daniel Velea Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which

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

Hi, > Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed > arguments about ALLOCATED PI. My auto-complete is getting too used to IPv6 terminology ;) s/-local/./ Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Hi Radu, >>> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE >> >> ??? > > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa > > ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request. Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed arguments about

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

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 11:06, Sander Steffann wrote: > > PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE > > ??? https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

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

Hi Randy, > i have had an epiphany! RIR stands for Rinse and Infinite Repeat. this > expains it all. i feel much better now. Good one ;) Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Hi Patrick, > What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? > Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL" :-) Nope, only the allocation will get a different status. The LIR can still use it like before, assign from it etc. Cheers, Sander signature.asc

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

Hi Riccardo, > If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy > example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before > 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of > allocation from who didn't. Every LIR can receive

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

Hi What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL" :-) Regards Patrick On 21.06.2016 09:17, Riccardo Gori wrote: Hi Sander, Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, Teorically not, but

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

Hi Sander, Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. There is none, please stop repeating that. I can ask the same If we had a

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)

Hi Riccardo, > Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against > speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. There is none, please stop repeating that. > I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be? This is a ridiculous statement.

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

Hi Gert, thank you for your reply Il 20/06/2016 10:00, Gert Doering ha scritto: Hi, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 05:02:50PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto: hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: I am strongly against to

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

ddress-policy-wg@ripe.net Отправленные: Суббота, 18 Июнь 2016 г 13:58:48 Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) > On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote: > Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed ch

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

Hi Gert, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes > to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly I'd hope you're at least half kidding here. While I'd agree that > This is

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

Remco, On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, 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. I have read version 2, also in

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

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi. > > I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for > undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all - > members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple

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

Hi, Do we actually know how many such instances exists where someone spawned LIRs for profit? I don't care how many LIRs a company has spawned, I care if they did it for profit. I doubt we have any idea. To be honest I think we are debating a policy here based on the supposition that there

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

Trading is restricted by 2015-01. Don't you see it? Open the transfer statistics and look it. But WG find the problem where is not a problem. 2016-06-20 12:16 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering : > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: >> > This policy is

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

Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > 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

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] 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)

Hi. I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all - members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it again. The IPs aren't

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

Hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:30PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > 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? This policy is not about "return allocations",

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

Gert Doering writes: > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further > changes to the IPv4 policy For what it's worth, the new version suits us just fine. Marking the numbers as non-transferrable should raise the barrier for speculators which seems likely to

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)

Hi, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an > argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05: > A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent" > space (which today

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

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > What exactly means stockpiling ? Opening additional LIRs to satisfy one > organisation's own need ? > No, to "stockpile" is to store something without using it. "Need" doesn't come into it. >

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

I oppose this proposal too. 1) it limits in rights all new LIRs. As I told in previous discussions LIR stats show the same rate of new LIR registration (250-300 LIRs avg) per month. It's about 40% of 185 is free and that means it will be about 7000 new LIRs in it. That will be enough for 2 years,

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

Hi Gert, Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto: hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) This proposal actually will only

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

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > >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

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)

hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to > already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to do stuff with

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:32:50PM +0200, Stefan Prager wrote: > People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6 > resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future > either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure

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

> On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote: > Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the > change itself is not part of current policy? I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip Provider Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:11, Sander Steffann wrote: > I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get > from RIPE NCC. How is preventing to sell off your addresses in any way > considered "healing yourself"? It doesn't only limit "selling", it limits "transfer by

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

I'm agree with Arash. On 6/18/2016 9:37 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: Hi, This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller blocks (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to

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

Hi, This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller blocks (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to transfer it out later if they don't need it. I'm opposing the policy, it

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

Hi Sander, here I am, thank you for your reply Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) You keep bringing that up, but how is

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

Hi Riccardo, >>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified >>> >> Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed >> in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep >> the database information accurate and to get some unused

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

Hi Radu, Thank you for providing concrete cases! This is now something that can be discussed. > Three: > - That other LIR opens up a second LIR > - They get their /22 (free) > - They can no longer apply "M" because the definition of "M" > changed, and they have to do a regular transfer. > > On

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

Hi Sander, thank you for your reply Il 17/06/2016 00:59, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Riccardo, I'm sorry, but there is some FUD here that I need to address. Again: I don't care whether this policy gets consensus or not, but I do care about the quality of the arguments. That is what Gert

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

Sorry Sander, thank you for your reply. I didn't reply to your first email 'cause i was busy. That's why my comment could not be understood at this time. I'll reply to your first email in reply to mine and I'll get here later.. regards Riccardo Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:48, Sander Steffann wrote: > Two scenarios: > > One > - Someone opens up an LIR > - They get their /22 (free) > - They sell it off to another LIR for a profit > > Two > - That other LIR opens up a second LIR > - They get their /22 (free) > - They merge that new LIR

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

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN [2016-06-18 00:06]: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > > that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you? > > Because it is in the past. Yesterday is in the past but it doesn't bother me because today

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you? Because it is in the past. > That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and > why? Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same. >

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

Hi Stefan, > Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, > I would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down > to just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve > months they will need to pay an additional

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

Hello Stefan, > Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward > any longer than it already has Excuse me, but that is not your call to make. Sander APWG co-chair signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Hi Radu, > On 17 Jun 2016, at 22:18 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 21:09, Remco van Mook wrote: >> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because >> the change itself is not part of current policy? > >

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

Hi, > Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you > by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks. > Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself. I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get from RIPE NCC. How is

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

Hi, Il 17/06/2016 19:32, Stefan Prager ha scritto: Dear colleagues, I suggest to just look at the facts here. Local Internet Registries(LIRs) before the 15th September 2012 have received Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC. Local Internet Registries after the 14th

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

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN [2016-06-17 22:21]: > No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit > reference to allocation made after a certain date in the past: > > All allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs after 14 September 2012 >

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

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 21:09, Remco van Mook wrote: > Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because > the change itself is not part of current policy? No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit reference to allocation made after a

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

Hi Stefan, > On 17 Jun 2016, at 19:32 , Stefan Prager wrote: > > There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after > 14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out > before the 15th September 2012. There is also no

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

Hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:09:11AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: > > Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied > > retroactively" no less than this one. > I don't think 2015-01 apply retroactively. > I think allocation made before implementation of 2015-01 are free from

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

ddress Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: 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 <pa...@rasana.net> wrote: > > Let's think for a better way to

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

* Remco van Mook [2016-06-16 16:18]: > > Thank you Marco. > > Dear all, > > 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. > >

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

* Payam Poursaied [2016-06-17 13:00]: > My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 > for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those > who really require IP, can get IP. THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT! Sebastian -- GPG Key:

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)

G List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: 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 <pa...@rasana.net> wrote: > > why not to create and enforce > policies

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

ess-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: June 17, 2016 3:50 PM To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final

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

Hi, > My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 > for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those > who really require IP, can get IP. I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous allocation policy and would

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)

16 2:29 PM To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally h

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

Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :) Here is the rest: Hi Payam, > My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers > rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably > without proper justification] > I remember

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

Hi Payam, > My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers > rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably > without proper justification] > I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst > and he declined our

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

+1 My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper justification] I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request although we

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

Hi, Il 17/06/2016 07:41, Tore Anderson ha scritto: * Elvis Daniel Velea Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after the moment of the allocation) will end up with an

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

* Elvis Daniel Velea > Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since > 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after > the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no > longer transferable. Elvis,

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

Hi all again Il 16/06/2016 17:44, Sascha Luck [ml] ha scritto: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, 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

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

Il 16/06/2016 17:45, Uros Gaber ha scritto: The latest auctions by the Ministry for children, education and gender equality - national agency for learning and IT (https://ipv4.stil.dk/) show a "good" example of "returning" the address space to the RIPE pool. wonderful And if these kind of

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

Riccardo Gori wrote: > I strongly, strongly and again strongly oppose this proposal. does this count for three votes? Nick

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

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

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 17:28, Nick Hilliard wrote: > rather than speculating, maybe someone from the RIPE NCC could provide > information on how much address space has been returned to the registry > over the last couple of years? Hi,

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 20:30, Sander Steffann wrote: > they were a member. Stop being a member = stop holding resources. > Allocations are for running networks with, not making money... I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including the ones allocated prior to the

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

W dniu 2016-06-16 o 20:30, Sander Steffann pisze: Hi Aleksey, And will lose his money The money is a membership fee that allowed them to hold resources while they were a member. Stop being a member = stop holding resources. Allocations are for running networks with, not making money...

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

Hi Nick, Not speaking in favour or against this proposal, just thinking about the possible effects: > I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE > registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources. > Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers;

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

Hi Aleksey, > And will lose his money The money is a membership fee that allowed them to hold resources while they were a member. Stop being a member = stop holding resources. Allocations are for running networks with, not making money... Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message

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

Hi Remco, On 6/16/16 6:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: 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. Still hate it, kill it! Explicitly

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

W dniu 2016-06-16 o 16:59, Jim Reid pisze: 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

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)

And will lose his money 2016-06-16 17:59 GMT+03:00 Jim Reid : > >> 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

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.

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

nal Message- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Remco van Mook > Sent: 16 June 2016 15:14 > To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended

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

On 16 June 2016 at 14:58, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the > Final /8 Policy" has been extended until 15 July 2016. > Couple of thoughts Do we need to have the option for an LIR to transfer

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

Thank you Marco. Dear all, 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. Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"*

  1   2   >