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

Hi Arash, > I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they > have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the > prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region > to other RIRs today? Good question. I'm sure the

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

Hi Kai, > So, since anything _above_ /64 (e. g. /65 to /128) would be whitewashed by > the proposal, using a whole /48 PA or PI for /64s for WiFis would be ok, as > long as each WiFi user only gets less than a /64 »assigned«? That's what the proposal currently says. > Proposal states:

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

Hi Leo, > So prefix delegation is OK as long as the prefix is longer than a /64? Technically that's what the proposal is currently proposing. I'm curious about the opinions of working group members about that. Cheers, Sander

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

Sorry, bad auto correct: > [...] need to come up with arguments and valid training That should be "reasoning" > that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild > and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful That should be "not useful" > for the policy

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

Hi, > Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and > made this mess. Please read my previous post. > Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk and many many more who requested > huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit. > > Thanks

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

> On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members > for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I > don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders.

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

Hi Sander, I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region to other RIRs today? Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE

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

Hi Arash, > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now > looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should > not be supported by 2016-03. I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining pool is not drained by

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

Hi, The ones that already have a grown business needs to be targeted to return their IP addresses and switch to IPv6 as soon as possible, They already had enough time, Not the ones that recently started. If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now looking to put some

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

That's a good point, what would happen when a business splits ? I think there are many situations that need to be discussed and if we want to do something good we'd need to cover all situations. And yes, there is definitely the need for better policies in order for NCC to do exactly what the

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

Hi there, am 22.10.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Sander Steffann: > This of course forced all ISPs to use PA space, but situations where the > "ISP" vs "End user" boundary wasn't the classical one had problems. This was > discussed on RIPE62 >

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

Hi Erik, > Going into that kind of thinking would be similar to not allowing external > voice calls to IPv6 PI assigned phones, because some third party should be > able to make use of it.. > > This discussion is different if we are actually (commercially) hosting > services on a

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

Fully agree. Using addresses to provide temporary Internet connectivity to “visiting” users should not be considered as an assignment, and in fact looking into my notes, when I presented the IPv6 PI policy proposal, I’d this clearly pictured in my mind. So I don’t think we need this change.

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

Anno domini 2016 Kai 'wusel' Siering scripsit: Hi Kai, > 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,

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

> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" > is now available for discussion. I support this proposal as well. The current interpretation of the policy seems pathological to be honest. It could be supposed that given the Freifunk precedent, a local government