Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Review Phase (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Hi all, This is a grammar details that doesn’t affect the policy proposal content. I’m fine either way, but of course, I’m not native English, and the way it is being used in the document right now, was the suggested NCC format. So, I will say I’m happy if they choose one way or another,

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

cha: viernes, 4 de mayo de 2018, 6:52 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6 * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> [2018-05-02 14:26]: > Note that in the case of RIP

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

2018, 20:37 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting Hi there, on 16.05.2018 17:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > So, to make sure I understood

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

icy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: Hi, > PI and PA are artificial names for the same thing. They are not. Please, enumerate what are the differences

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

unto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit: > Responding below, in-line. *PLEASE* use some meaningful way to quote and answer inline so a reader can distinguish between the original text

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

g...@space.net> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 12:17 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Hi, On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 12:07:50PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINE

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

er become a LIR and pay a lot more for the same IPv6 address space, or they will probably not start using IPv6 at all. Both would not be a good idea I think. Jan Hugo On 05/16/2018 02:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, >

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

echa: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 18:17 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: 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:

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

om /32 and sign LIR contract). Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Fecha: sábado, 19 de mayo de 2018, 14:21 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] propos

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

;address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI 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". [Jordi] You

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

st regards Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 14:52:57 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi all, > > For those that haven't been in the meeting, the slides are available at https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/97-RIPE-2018-05-v1.pdf

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

artin Dne středa 16. května 2018 16:10:13 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Hi Martin, > > I'm clear about the IPv4 situation. No discussion on that. > > I also understand that both (ISP for special infrastructure and a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

, 16:47 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting On 16.05.2018 14:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been asked to state what is

[address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I've been asked to state what is the problem. I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems I see: 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)". To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an

[address-policy-wg] 2018-01 Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi all, I tried to find the "mismatch" that Peter mention today in the meeting about this proposal text, however was unable to. So, if Peter or somebody else can point to anything more specific, the authors will be happy to provide thougths for alternatives to the mismatching text. Thanks!

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

unto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Wrote a huge post. Tried to remove all the impolite phrases from it then. Didn't manage to do that. Removed the whole post. So, in one sentence, I am against this. 16.05.18 15:52, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ vi

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

ARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI in-line Regards, Martin Dne středa 16. května 2018 17:45:01 CEST, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg napsal(a): > Below, in-line. &g

Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI

, 16 de mayo de 2018, 22:06 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] proposal to remove IPv6 PI Am 16.05.2018 um 14:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: > […] > I believe we have several problems that my p

[address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

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 another discussion in AfriNIC, Owen DeLong, suggested that we could do something similar. I'm

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

dress-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: 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

Re: [address-policy-wg] inputs on possible policy proposal for IPv6

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:25:12AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > ???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. Speaking as a long-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Sander, My reading of PDP 2.4 is not that we can’t make changes (which I believe are in the same direction of the proposal, look for my questions below, so no substantial changes, only making sure that we have in the text what we want). My reason to re-raise those now, is because they

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean Hi, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:09:27PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I agree that is not ???unanimity???, but I don???t think there is consensus on this prop

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Understood, even do, I will love to heard that from the NCC, because the disadvantage is that then to interpret the policy text, you need to read “all” the policy proposals, which I don’t think is very nice or useful. Despite that, I still believe that my proposed text (or something a bit

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

What I’m trying to avoid is what I read as a contradiction among the policy text, the argumentation and the impact analysis, so I don’t really care about a fix number and I agree to let “it free” to avoid technology issues. According to that, I guess this may work: “Providing another entity

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

2018, 11:02 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean > On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wro

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

ss-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean > On 16 Jan 2018, at 10:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

ss-policy-wg] what does consensus mean On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > 1) When you believe you agree with a policy proposal and declare it to the list (so chairs can measure cons

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

sulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) > On 15 Jan 2018, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > I think

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

Hi Marco, I feel then contradictory this: 2.6 change Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors connect to the assignment holder's

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

ssignment Clarification) > On 15 Jan 2018, at 13:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Marco, > > I feel then contradictory this: ... detailed nit-picking of policy proposal deleted ...

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

In my opinion there are 3 points to clarify: 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data centers? 2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy? Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple

[address-policy-wg] policy text or anything else?

Hi all, I've changed the subject, because I want to talk here in general about our policy process, not any specific policy. I've tried to find where in our process, states that in addition to the policy text itself, other inputs during the PDP matter. If there is such confirmation, could the

[address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

(sorry Jim ! subject replaced) Hi Sander, Below in-line. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander Steffann Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:13 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

i, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:19:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA. > > Or is that also breaking the PDP? The IA happen

Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

What I'm saying is that, if we can't change the policy text, at least we make sure that those cases are crystal clear in the IA. Or is that also breaking the PDP? Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Sander Steffann

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Thanks Malcolm, I think this is a perfect definition of consensus and it shows that "more voices" not necessarily means "consensus". However, I really think, regardless if there are or not objections, consensus can't be achieved on "non-sense" or "unrealistic" proposals which can't be

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Fecha: miércoles, 17 de enero de 2018, 18:09 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean Hi, On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:40:28AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ v

Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

t; On 15 Jan 2018, at 10:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > > Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no objections Jordi, whatever definition of consensus someone chooses is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

TINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Sander, I know Gert and you very well, and I don’t have any doubt that it was not done in a “malicious” way, but I think the PDP has not been followed correctly. Again, is not a matter of this concrete proposal, is a generic concern on the PDP application. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Gert, all, Obviously, I don’t agree, just because for me, “consensus” is having no objections, not a “democracy voting”. I also feel that the way this has been done, extending the discussion, so allowing the proposer to participate in a conference, and then asking the participants to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Thanks Marco! To make it easy, I've prepared an online diff. https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Red color is actual text. Green is the proposed one. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Marco Schmidt

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Hi all, As you probably remember, during the discussion of the recently implemented 2016-04, I complained that we should not approve a policy proposal with a wording that creates (in my opinion), discrepancies between the NCC impact analysis and the policy text. I was suggested that it can

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

nombre de Maximilian Wilhelm <m...@rfc2324.org> Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 17:14 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

;address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy) Moin, am 17.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg: I've also suggested the same text in the other 4 RIRs with equivalent policy pro

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

ication in IPv6 Policy) Hi Jordi, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:57:20PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >I've created an "online diff" so you can compare the actual text, with my proposal: > >https://www.diffchecker.com/SMXYO2rc

Re: [address-policy-wg] Preliminary policy proposal: Exceptional /20 IPv4 allocations from the last /8

Hi Janos, I will be in favor of this policy proposal if it means that those LIRs are going to contribute to gym cost for end-users (non-LIRs). Have you thought about that? Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Janos

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 concluded (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Gert, all, I agree with your summary, and also understand the point that is better to have "something" now and improve it. In fact, yesterday I expressed the same view in anti-abuse, even against my previous opinion that we should do it "right" in a single "step". Consequently, in view of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-01 New Policy Proposal (Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Thanks Gert! Further, having no inputs removes all the fun of the PDP! In case you missed previous emails, to make it easier for you to comment, I've prepared an on-line diff so you can easily track the proposed changes: https://www.diffchecker.com/2mGPoRbo Also, the complete text of the

[address-policy-wg] What we want to be acceptable in IPv4 PI and IPv6 PI?

Hi all, Trying to look into my presentation today from a higher-level perspective ... What is the expected usage of IPv4 and IPv6 PI? It should be the same or different? Do we want to use IPv6 PI as an entry point for people, without any restrictions, to start providing services and then they

[address-policy-wg] proposed text for Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy (policy proposal 2018-02)

Hi all, Unfortunately, I've not received inputs on my question about what we want to be allowed in IPv6 PI, but as I'm working on this in other regions, got inputs in another region, which I think I can translate to this text: ** 2.6. Assign To "assign" means to delegate address space

Re: [address-policy-wg] [CFP] ACM/IEEE IPSN 2019 in CPSWeek

May be talking directly with ACM/IEEE, so they tell their members to respect the AUP, and if they don't react, just block any message that has IEEE (telling IEEE that we will be forced to do so). Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

tions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for that server, that's wh

[address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Hi all, As you know, I've been working on different versions of a clarification to 2016-04 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04). This proposal allows a single IP to be sub-assigned, and the author explained (not just in the policy proposal text, but also in the

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg Sent: 17. tammikuuta 2019 14:13 To: address-policy-wg Subject: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification Hi all, As

Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

And I agree with all what you said! I just want to make sure that we all are in the same page. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 15:10 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg

[address-policy-wg] 2019-01 Review Phase (Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA")

Sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, but just read all the thread and the impact analysis, and I'm supporting as well. Regards, Jordi ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company

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

Same here, sorry, I've not participated in the discussion, a bit overloaded with daily work, but just read all the thread, and I'm supporting it. Further I can add some data. I've participated in APNIC 47, and prop-127, which is mention in this proposal, reached consensus. I've also discussed

Re: [address-policy-wg] PA ??? life after death

Even very low-cost chipsets for CEs, such as Mediatek, Broadcom, Cavium/Marvell, etc., can offload IPv6 as well. Sometimes is not the hardware, but the firmware not taking advantage of it. For IPv6, unless you want pure dual-stack, not the right transition for what is needed now

[address-policy-wg] informal discussion about removing 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site

Hi all, As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as part of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved consensus on removing the equivalent text. ARIN has also

Re: [address-policy-wg] Application for AS number

Hi all, I've already drafted a policy proposal to make a change on this, but if I got it correctly, the chairs were believing that it was not needed, so I never officially submitted it. I'm happy to submit it again. It may be interesting for all the list participants to read my policy

[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi all, I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resources to non-legacy, when they got transferred. I don't really recall if this was discussed during the relevant

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I keep thinking that ripe-682 (RIPE resource transfer policies), should have a provision (as it is the case in all the other RIRs), in order to "convert" the legacy resou

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:04:11PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > My personal view but looking for the good of the community is that it is better to get rid ASAP of the "legacy" status for as much resources we can,

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

jordipalet El 13/7/19 14:43, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > If legacy holders, want to transfers those resources and escape from

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hope this explains a bit. Regards, Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone Op 13 jul. 2019 om 14:49 heeft JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg het volgende geschreven: Hi Gert, If the received of the transfer is already bound by contracts with RIPE, he is the one that wil

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Tore, El 15/7/19 12:26, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson" escribió: * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > I think my previus email just explained it. Not really... > The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

;address-policy-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg" wrote: Hi Tore, I think my previus email just explained it. The motivation is my personal view that we have a problem (as a community) by not bringing into the system

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

think so, we could keep growing the non-legacy resources, while other regions get "cleaned". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 15/7/19 10:05, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Tore Anderson" escribió: * Gert Doering > On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 01:37:19PM +0200, J

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Sander, I was referring to inter-RIR transfers, sorry not having been more explicit. I understand that the previous policies were only intra-RIR. The actual ones are both intra and inter. I don't think it is a matter of respect previous rights, because in that case, when we do *any* policy

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Jim, El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" escribió: > On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet, and it is surprising to me that we are the

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

oering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via >> address-policy-wg wrote: >>> Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing >>&g

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ering" escribió: Hi, On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Again, please consider, if it is good that we are the only RIR not doing so. I don't think that's good. If this is the main argument ("I changed thi

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

06:48:46PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > -> I don't think this is "delicate" at all. Nobody is being *forced* to do that. If you have legacy, you can do transfers outside the system and nobody can oppose to that. However, please read the complete e

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

ionale why they implemented this kind of policy? Maybe they have some strong arguments we are missing here? Gert Doering wrote at 2019-07-16 10:46: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:29:28AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > address-policy-wg wrote

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

, of course and this is just part of the process to improve our policies. El 17/7/19 20:15, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:01:44PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > We, as a community, should look for the benefit of

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi, El 17/7/19 18:08, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" escribió: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, at 14:02, Tore Anderson wrote: > In any case, and to be perfectly honest, this rationale reads to like > petty jealousy to me - «I can't do X with my RIPE ALLOCATED PA, so

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Tore, El 15/7/19 14:02, "Tore Anderson" escribió: * JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > -> Because I think when there is an unfair situation (some folks bound to rules/policies, others not), there is a problem. ... > -> Because is not

Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

I didn't said anything about retroactivity: - Holders of legacy that don't transfer them, aren't affected. - Transfers already done (from legacy resources) aren't affected The only affected ones are "new" transfers (if the policy reach consensus), and is only affecting the ones that get the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non-native English speakers. And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of course, agree which all the barbarities done at that time. Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 11:52, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribió: Jordi, Ah, the Spanish Inquisition reference is a Month Python reference.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List

sions. Some folks go away from the thread doing so, instead of facilitating participation, or if I can say, even inclusiveness. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 12:04, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 01/11/2019 10:52: >

Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions

@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -Original Message- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid > Cc:

Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions

Not sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" escribió: > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > My point was al

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

Hi David, Responding below, in-line. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/10/19 7:01, "address-policy-wg en nombre de David Farmer" escribió: On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:01 AM Sander Steffann wrote: Hi, > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Review Phase Extended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

Hi Abdullah, I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a hard time to understand the text of the rest of the policy text if we don’t rely in a very good set of definitions. However, I just noticed something that could be removed: “[Note: some of these

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 Review Phase Extended (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)

nd regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC > On 13 Jan 2020, at 22:18, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Hi Abdullah, > > I don’t think that will be good. In fact, in many cases, we have a hard ti

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 79 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes

Hi Petrit, all, I just read them and look fine to me. Thanks! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/5/20 15:12, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Petrit Hasani" escribió: Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 79 have now been

[address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard

After my comment in the Addressing Policy meeting, I decided to go ahead with this email, maybe it can a provocation for some inputs in the open mic ... Note that this text is from my AFRINIC proposal (to make it quick now), so disregard parts that may not correctly matches the RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

Hi Erik, Regarding your response on reciprocity: If we do that in AFRINIC, then, there is no reciprocity with ARIN, which is the bigger “donor”. I already tried several models, for both LACNIC and AFRINIC, and they didn’t work out. Finally, making a full reciprocal proposal in LACNIC

[address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

Hi all, After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking on possible ways to resolve this, so before sending a possible policy proposal, I think it deserves some discussion. The intent of the proposal 2018-01 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01), was to align the

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

n that may seem like a waste to some people and my specific issue could probably be solved by RIPE allowing me to split my /29 into /32s. -Cynthia On Wed, 28 Oct 2020, 13:05 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, wrote: Hi all, After Nikolas presentation today, I've been thinking o

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" escribió: > >JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: >> However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for getting more >> IPv4 allocations, *even if you don't use/need it*

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

ink the we should ignore the stockpiling? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 28/10/20 13:09, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 28/10/2020 12:05: > However, in RIPE NCC, if you created several LIRs for

Re: [address-policy-wg] stockpiling IPv6

allocation requests from the IANA. Elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > On Oct 28, 2020, at 05:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > Note that I'm not intending to change an

Re: [address-policy-wg] FW: Policy Reciprocity

I agree with Shane here. We shall correct mistakes ASAP. Legacy was a mistake, just because we didn't have the RIR system before, nothing else. It was not a conscious decision, nobody understood at that time that Internet as a "global" thing will need those resources and will become scarce.

Re: [address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

Hi Hans, I was talking in general, not just in this region. Also, they need be bound to the policies, which is not the case in all the regions. As said, those are separate problems, not the same in all the RIRs, but closely related and also related to the transfers as a possible way

Re: [address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

El 21/10/20 12:16, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" escribió: > On 21 Oct 2020, at 10:07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > It is not fair that legacy holders are not bind to policies and services (and their cost) from th

  1   2   >