Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi list, I support this proposal. It's seems logical and needed modify. Simple and easy clarification to avoid misunderstading in interpretation. Well done thank you Max. I realized that I was proposing sort of this to one of my customers just before summer season 2016 for beach side public

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

+1 Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hello, am 21.10.2016 um 10:32 schrieb David Croft: > Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary > assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease > on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not > the intention. I'm new to this, so

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

On 21 October 2016 at 12:55, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote: > Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit: >> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement >> text for the "Contractual Requirements" > > That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit: > On 21 October 2016 at 12:55, Maximilian Wilhelm wrote: > > Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit: > >> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement > >> text for the "Contractual Requirements" > > > > That doesn't

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > So it doesn't matter what the policy says it's scope is, it only matters > what the chair decides we can discuss or not. Nice "democracy" we have ... > > Even in parliament you need a chairperson to keep the

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

Hi Mikael, Hi Sander, Il 21/10/2016 16:45, Sander Steffann ha scritto: Hi Mikael, These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 without this policy. So they were only able to get

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello Ciprian, > > > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done > with resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's > scope and start a new one with proper debates

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hello Ciprian, > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done with > resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's scope > and start a new one with proper debates over this issue. Please leave it to the chairs to determine what is in scope for

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > > In market-based economies, M -including the disposal of > > assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, a state > regulator, which the NCC is NOT. > > It is unthinkable in such a

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

Hi Mikael, > These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it > wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 > without this policy. > > So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were > saved to be used under

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

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members that can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from the date this policy proposal would be implemented) b. the members that have only received resources

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

I didn't have any popcorn but a few nachos were helpful to read the full e-mail. Very good and detailed explanations. +100 from me to Elvis which can also be read as -100 for the policy. For those of you who pretend working, it's friday so you can't trick anyone ;). You'd better read Elvis's

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

Hi, On 10/19/16 11:05 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote: The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool. I do not agree with this policy proposal and believe it

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Sander, I hoped you would understand the idea and not hang on details. Yes, an integration process can take days, weeks, months or years. There are cases when placing a 24 months hold would make no difference but in most cases I think (based on the experience with previous acquisitions at my

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Agree with Sascha. As with the Allocated PI, in this situation RIPE community would like to impose some policies which are against the most common business practices. It is not efficient as it can at any time be attacked in any civilized justice system. Can anyone bring out some data on the "huge"

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this: > > If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you > would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful > paraphrasing, and

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no business doing. Please educate me why the community has no business doing this. I would have thought that was

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately. As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit: > Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary > assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease > on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not > the intention. Thanks for the support. > I

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

> Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write > in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I > oppose this policy. > > Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it > doesn't. It brings up important changes which

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I oppose this policy. Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it doesn't. It brings up important changes which are

Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Dear Carlos, What I was trying to say is that if we try not to complicate things then we can say there were IPs given to LIRs which they would distribute to the end-users and those IPs should remain under LIR's control and there were IPs given to end users through LIRs. The status of the IPs is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not the intention. I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement text for the

[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments as subnets of /64 and shorter. You can find the full proposal at: