Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Lu,
>
> > I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
> need" policy.
>
> I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would
> have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to current policy
> development?
>

Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still need
to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do
not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
develop future?

As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in
our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
development.

If this list is patient enough, we won't have people coming back over and
over again with asking NCC to be police force, reclamation of resources.

Also in the Ripe meeting with the younger people I've talked to, many of
them do not understand how the policy being developed today because there
is no start point, we ware not there since it started, not there for over
two decades like many friends here.

One day someone interested about policy development searching for future
understanding of the *need*, will see it has been blocked to discuss here.

I hope it does not happen.

>
> > We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an
> assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
>
> RIPE NCC only would assign provider independent resources. To LIRs RIPE
> NCC would allocate resources and then verify policy requirements, such as
> need, when the LIR makes assignments from the allocation.
>
> > The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few
> examples, please provide your view:
>
> I am not going into the details of your examples as they are no longer
> relevant to current policy development. In general: assignments are quite
> specific. As an LIR you assign resources to your own infrastructure or a
> specific customer. Whenever any of that changes (i.e. customers changing,
> expansion of networks etc) it would be considered a new assignment which
> would require new justification (need etc).
>

I believe it is relevant as I have explained above.

>
> So the correct thing to do in the database (to keep things a bit relevant)
> would be to delete the old assignments and create new ones. That would keep
> the history nice and clean (old object would be for the old assignment, new
> object with new creation date would be for the new assignment).
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
"Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about
situations and concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region...
Let's stop this discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy."

This is a pure policy discussion and not relevant to the region really,
need exists or existed in every region.

"It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the
first place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then
you can't just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't
part of the condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are
completely dependent on the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have
any needs criteria anymore so this is all hypothetical."

all the assignment for an "service", in which what confuse me is "does RIR
also manage the infrastructure detail for the service"?

No offense here in anyway, as I repeated said, I just trying to understand
*need*. that's it.


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi Gert:

I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.

If you read my last Email, I have tried my best to ask that very specific
question.

*So the bottom line is, what does *need* mean? Does it means the whole
package of justification material(so including everything submitted during
the evaluation process for the assignment, including but not limit to the
upstream's contract, location of the server, etc), or does it means the
*service* was provided, LIR can free justify it's own infrastructure(e.g.
move server from DC A to DC B to improve speed) to provide same service to
the same customer group?*

*Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then
by definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of
the server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the
assignment again therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the
infrastructure adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have
assignment window), because the need has changed.*

Sorry about my English that I can not put it in one sentence, and needed
example to help explain, but my question are very very specific and not for
the beer time.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still
> need
> > to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we
> do
> > not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
> > develop future?
>
> I do not think that this is particularily relevant here.  The status
> "we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different
> ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different
> that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.
>
> If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.
>
> But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff
> are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this
> at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.
>
> > As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element
> in
> > our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
> > development.
>
> Not in this vagueness.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior

[Lu Heng]

Hi Guys:

I don't want to be a*** here, but this is just like the example I have just
given...

And Valentin:

No, you can can not delete or cleanup archive in anyway, the only way is to
have legitimate reason(illegal content for example), and send an lawyer
letter to RIPE NCC to request take down under EU or Dutch law.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Valentin Panait <
valentin.pan...@ch-center.com> wrote:

> Hello there,
>
> I think this subject is not in anyone interest.
> I just really don`t know why , but...
> Is old enough with no reply from anyone.
> Can i ask an administrator to delete this to make a cleanup on this
> archive?
>
> Best Regards,
> Valentin Panait
>
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Nick Hilliard]

On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people. 

you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very
specific answer.

> the only way to be more specific would be naming people. 

which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with
the RIPE NCC.

If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the
matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts
available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being
handled by the RIPE NCC.  In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.

If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an
case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent
Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still need
> to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do
> not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
> develop future?

I do not think that this is particularily relevant here.  The status 
"we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different
ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different
that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.

If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.  

But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff 
are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this
at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.

> As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in
> our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
> development.

Not in this vagueness.

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgph1XexgoMJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> > here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very
> specific answer.
>

I've tried to provide more details, and tried my best to ask the specific
question, if there is an understanding/language issue, I apologize,  but
only pointing at me saying I am asking a vague question without future
exploring the detail in which I will try my best to explain, does not help
any thing really.

If a new guy came to ask an dum question, I think the best way is try to
understand what he really trying to ask and help to answer it. but not" you
are vague we don't understand go away). if that is the case, it really
would take genius to join this community because all new guy's question
will be dum at some point.


>
> > the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with
> the RIPE NCC.
>
> If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the
> matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts
> available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being
> handled by the RIPE NCC.  In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.
>
> If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an
> case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent
> Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.
>

Simply not true here.

>
> Nick
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior

[Lu Heng]

Hi

Read second part of my email, I was answering your question.

On Thursday, 3 December 2015, Valentin Panait 
wrote:

> Hello Lu
>
> I just talking about another subject "LIRs with good / bad behavior" that
> i opened some time ago and no one reply to that, not about your subject "An
> interesting policy question".
>
> Best Regards,
> Valentin Panait
>
> On 12/03/2015 10:12 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
>
> Hi Guys:
>
> I don't want to be a*** here, but this is just like the example I have
> just given...
>
> And Valentin:
>
> No, you can can not delete or cleanup archive in anyway, the only way is
> to have legitimate reason(illegal content for example), and send an lawyer
> letter to RIPE NCC to request take down under EU or Dutch law.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Valentin Panait <
> valentin.pan...@ch-center.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hello there,
>>
>> I think this subject is not in anyone interest.
>> I just really don`t know why , but...
>> Is old enough with no reply from anyone.
>> Can i ask an administrator to delete this to make a cleanup on this
>> archive?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Valentin Panait
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
>

-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior

[Valentin Panait]

I understand. No probem
Best Regards,
Valentin Panait

On 12/03/2015 10:45 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:04:24PM +0200, Valentin Panait wrote:

Can i ask an administrator to delete this to make a cleanup on this
archive?

No.  The integrity of this is list can not be compromised by removing
arbitrary articles from the archives (unless a judge requires the NCC
to do so for violation of laws).

Gert Doering
 -- APWG chair

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Lu,

> Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then by 
> definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of the 
> server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the assignment 
> again

It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the first 
place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then you can't 
just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't part of the 
condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are completely dependent on 
the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have any needs criteria anymore 
so this is all hypothetical.

> therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the infrastructure 
> adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have assignment window), 
> because the need has changed.

Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about situations and 
concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region... Let's stop this 
discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] LIRs with good / bad behavior

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:04:24PM +0200, Valentin Panait wrote:
> Can i ask an administrator to delete this to make a cleanup on this 
> archive?

No.  The integrity of this is list can not be compromised by removing
arbitrary articles from the archives (unless a judge requires the NCC
to do so for violation of laws).

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgpBQE8SZF04u.pgp
Description: PGP signature