Greetings,
After reading your message, i had to go search if i expressed an opinion
on 2023-04 or not. It seems i did (back in September), but perhaps i
wasn't 100% clear about my opposition to this proposal.
So in order to make it clear for the co-chairs, i do oppose this proposal,
on
Greetings Denis, All,
Yes, it was a very long message :-)
Well, maybe not, if we keep in mind the time you have worked and thought
about and around the RIPE database.
I obviously don't agree with everything you wrote, while i can agree with
most of it.
2023-04 seems a bad idea to me,
Greetings,
I would like to express my support for 2023-02.
While i don't see it as a big priority, it makes sense for me to write in
these proposed changes.
Regards,
Carlos
On Wed, 24 May 2023, Tore Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 16:31 +0200, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
The
Greetings,
I would like to express my support to this proposal, as it aims to extend
the usability of the IXP reserved pool, without any impact on operations
of new IXPs.
Regards,
CArlos
On Wed, 24 May 2023, Tore Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 2023-04-24 at 09:01 +0200, Angela Dall'Ara
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, Gert Doering wrote:
"not *really* operating as IXP" is usually open for long discussions...
Agree.
I won't go there, as i don't want to draft a new proposal :-)))
Cheers,
Carlos
gert
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
Hi,
I also support this proposal, after reading the NCC's impact analysis.
I was a bit surprised to see there is a /13 reserved for temporary
assignments, and only a /15 for IXPs (just read also 2023-01...).
I would also like to add a +1 to what Cynthia wrote, even if this will
require a
Hi All,
I would like to express my support to this proposal.
It doesn't seem to tackle recovering IXP assignments made to orgs which
are not really operating as IXPs, but is definitely a step in a positive
direction.
Best Regards,
Carlos
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Hi,
What's the main idea for this "policy compliance dashboard"?
Something that any LIR can click a button or go to a menu on the LIRPortal
and see a list of inconsistencies from the RIPE NCC's point of view...?
Can it be some kind of on-demand/self-service ARC (Assisted Registry
Check),
Greetings,
We have come a long way since "You need to have 200 customers in
order to receive an IPv6 allocation from the RIPE NCC".
Well done everyone!
Regards,
Carlos
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020, Petrit Hasani wrote:
Dear colleagues,
We are pleased to announce that we have
Hi,
Also, my support. Good housekeeping :-)
Regards,
Carlos
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:20:54AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
And if you do agree with the policy moving forward, please let it
know in the Last Call phase as
Hi,
+1 support.
Regards,
Carlos
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:51:14
From: Nick Hilliard
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-06 New Policy Proposal (Multiple Editorial
Changes in IPv6
I also support this proposal.
Cheers,
Carlos
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Andy Davidson wrote:
Still support this proposal.
Hi Nick, All,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Carlos Friaças wrote on 23/07/2019 22:03:
"e.g. geographic association"
-- really...??
Yep, really.
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/comp-pol-2018v2.pdf
Nice to have that written down (i.e. in a document,
Disclaimer: i'm not deeply interested in transfers, that's not what the
org i work for usually does... :)
(please see inline)
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Jim Reid wrote:
On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
wrote:
IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not
"e.g. geographic association"
-- really...??
Cheers,
Carlos
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote on 22/07/2019 14:26:
IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false
dilemma here.
there's no false dichotomy.
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
(...)
Leaving the inherent silliness of "owning" or "administering"
integers aside:
I own my car because "somebody, someday" told me (after money
changing hands, of course) "this is yours". The same applies to
the computer I'm writing this on. If
Hi Jordi, All,
I was doing some googling and easily found the references on
ARIN/LACNIC/AFRINIC websites...
https://www.lacnic.net/1022/2/lacnic/legacy-resources
"Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as such"
Hi,
Disclaimer: the organization i work for is a LIR and has legacy resources
(both self-owned and sponsored).
From a personal perspective, i would have preferred that no status changes
are possible at all. However, some years ago, i did let that personal
preference fall, in order to
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
(...)
Now, regarding the "monitoring" bit - since we're all mostly well-behaved
here,
:-)))
describing the limitations and requirements upfront and only acting
in cases where the NCC is informed about misuse works fairly well
In this specific case
Hi,
Just a small note:
2019-03 is not about "anti-spam", it's about "hijacks".
(if some people are not able to abide by the RIR/registry work, then why
they need to be part of it?)
As far as we authors have been told, the doubt was really between the
anti-abuse WG and the routing WG.
In
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
Hello, Gert, Community.
Hi,
IPv4 - it's not outdated, exact about IPv4 we are talking. Not about IPv6.
And we discuss way to continue support and effective use IPv4 while IPv4 will
be not needed anymore.
Yes, IPv4 is still the dominant
Dear colleagues,
After reading the Impact Analysis, i wish to express my support to
2019-01.
Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2019-01, "Clarification of Definition for "ASSIGNED PA"" is now
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
Am 26.02.2019 um 23:13 schrieb Cynthia Revström:
I have also been informed that this might be a rather unique case in regards to
having multiple physical locations requiring PI space.
It's not ? been there myself, and got really annoyed by
at?s my take on it.
With Kind Regards,
Dominik Nowacki
Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales.
Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88
Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS.
On 19 Feb 2019, at 08:08, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Martin Hun?k wrote:
(...)
Unability to getting IPv4 from RIPE doesn't mean unability to get IPv4
conectivity.
Nor (some) IPv4 addresses, which can be obtained from "the market".
But it push the new player to start with IPv6 and get the v4 as a
service.
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJHgs4wWO58
Presentation;
https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_42/PDF/PPM/sweeting-policy.pdf
Hope that helps.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:09 AM Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
wrote:
From the minutes:
"The President pres
From the minutes:
"The President presented a slide deck to the Board with details of the
issue."
I guess that slide deck is not public...?
Carlos
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
Meanwhile, in ARIN-Land:
https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg98840.html
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello,
Hello again,
On 2/8/19 9:15 AM, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg wrote:
I think only one reason, which will really boost IPv6 adoption is real
exhaustion of IPv4 pool within our (RIPE) region.
I also would like to see a stronger IPv6
Hi Radu-Adrian, All,
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:19, Jim Reid wrote:
The question here I think is what should be the trigger event. And then
what happens to the remaining v4 addresses that fell down the back of
the sofa, slipped through the
Dear Daniel, All,
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello,
On 2/7/19 1:17 PM, Servereasy via address-policy-wg wrote:
I oppose this proposal, unless at least RIPE NCC will charge members
based on how much IPv4 space they have. I find that this will be the
only way to really boost
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote:
(...)
All that you added is derived from "obtain IPs". Of course you are right but
until you get IPs you
do not need AS, RPKI and so on. Training may be useful without IPs but you can
find a way
to go to training without LIR status.
Yes, but
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Jim Reid wrote:
On 7 Feb 2019, at 07:59, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg
wrote:
Even when the pools reach ZERO, if 1000 LIRs stop paying fees (and that's only one
example/route), the "runout" will be temporarily reverted, and handing out IPv4
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Peter Hessler wrote:
(...)
4) While there is a belief The Internet(tm) should just up and migrate
to IPv6, that is unrealistic. E.g. Twitter, Amazon, Reddit, Github, and
*many* home/business ISPs around the world do not even IPv6. Whinging
about it in policy groups
Hi,
(please see inline)
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Martin Hun?k wrote:
What I'm afraid of is pressure for further deaggregation of those last
/24s. Even now in the mailing list there was opinion that just one /24
is useless because you can't assign from it to another entity. Not
talking about
Hi,
Please see inline.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote:
On Feb 6, 2019, at 16:24, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
In that case, IPv4 is "basically useless" from a business point of view.
But that statement is provably false.
Additionally, a lot of business is about providing
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
On 06.02.2019 14:36, ga...@nethinks.com wrote:
[?] I'd
rather hand that /21 as two /22 to two new LIRs instead of eight /24
to eight new LIRs, since a /24 is basically useless anyway. Especially
if you have to wait 6 or more months for it. (Of
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
(...)
... Keep /22 possibility so the
complete runout of IPv4 won't be postponed.
See above. I do not see the point about 'complete runout'. We *have* run
out already. This is about the very very tail end.
Allow me to disagree.
People are
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
(...)
I'd rather hand that /21 as two /22 to two new LIRs instead of eight /24
to eight new LIRs, since a /24 is basically useless anyway.
I really don't agree with the former.
The spirit of 2019-02 is precisely that a /24 is the minimum usable
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
(...)
I know some company can have multiple entity to buy extra range. Some company
is cheap to register like in UK.
Maybe use company UBO registry obligation in EU can fight that ?
RIPE Region does cover more than just EU (EU28 or EU27
Forward didn't work, so trying "Reply". :-)
Carlos
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24"
is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once
I was unaware about this list limitation, but hope this helps... :-)
Regards,
Carlos
=
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 18:18:45
From: Michael Kafka
To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on this list, cannot reply to old topic
Hi everyone,
I'd like to join the
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, Alexey Galaev wrote:
Hello.
Hello,
I strongly oppose this proposal.
Why there are no proposal with increasing IPv4 Allocations to /19, for example?
Everyone is free to submit any proposal, following the PDP.
2019-02 is not about adjustements to the past. It's
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Jetten Raymond wrote:
Hi,
Hi Raymond,
I strongly oppose this proposal, a similar proposal was mode before, (2017-03) ,
and I agree with the arguments opposing the proposal.
It's really not the same proposal, although i'm the common link between
2019-02 and
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, Uros Gaber wrote:
This uncertainty will certainly also discourage LIRs from signing
up as member just to get IPv4 - regardless of the economics. Say,
if you need IPv4 to deliver a project due in six months, then
getting it from the market will be
Hi,
please see inline.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, ga...@nethinks.com wrote:
That is an option. But in order to not punish late entries to the market,
Some "late entries" are/will not be market driven. Some
companies/organisations could only be searching for a way to become
independent from
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Marco Schmidt
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-02, "Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24"
is now available for discussion.
This proposal aims to reduce the IPv4 allocation size to a /24 once the
RIPE NCC is unable to allocate contiguous /22 ranges.
Greetings,
Jordi, thanks for this work (and the diffchecker really helps!) :-)
This seems to be the simplest approach (organisation=LIR).
I don't believe we should keep the less explicit wording on the policy,
thus i support this proposal.
Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
(pt.rccn
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
The *absence* of the route is a very strong indicator that no other
services than directly peering-related are sitting on that network, no?
or that the holder is squatting the space, or that it's being used for
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote:
(...)
I'd politely suggest that this is an area that the RIPE NCC should not
get involved in, especially from the point of view of implicitly issuing
recommended practice by implying that there is a problem with doing
this. The IXP associations are
t, but it's just a matter of sizing it. If v2.0,
v3.0, v4.0, ... is eventually approved/adopted, it may be that there isn't
a /12 to do this anymore...
So, we really didn't focus in the task of establishing
barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-)
Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Hi George, All,
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, George Giannousopoulos wrote:
Hello all,
I see pros and cons for both accepting this proposal and rejecting it.
One thing I'm curious about.. ARIN has run out of IPv4 space..
They had this...
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10
Rene,
Much appreciated!
The projected dates you mentioned are very useful!
Best Regards,
Carlos Friaças
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Rene Wilhelm wrote:
Hi Carlos, All,
On 9/23/17 1:02 AM, Carlos Friaças wrote:
[...]
do we know how many LIRs eligible under the current policy have not
yet
se years ago, and nobody cares
about that now.
There is also the issue with "refurbished" address space... apart from the
issue that IPv4 address space now has value, so creating a new rule/policy
to "extract" it frow its current owners is quite inimaginable... :-)
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
Regards,
Arash
rity than keeping the DFZ on 683k (today) instead
of 725k, 750k or even 800k routes. I know 800k routes looks insane, but
two years ago 683k would have been equally insane :-))
ps: On 24-09-2015 (two years ago), 572876 routes
https://web.archive.org/web/20150924225101/https://www.cidr-repor
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Willy MANGA wrote:
So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand
hurdles on european continent.
I hope this time, it will be clearer :)
same reason as in africa: for most organisations it's too much work with
too little
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
(...)
Where does this 'responsibily' end?
Don't know, but still feel we should try for the coming years.
When will be "well, the IPv4 well dried out back in 2011;
It didn't completely (even today), but the RIPE NCC service region
Hi,
<2017-03 co-author hat on>
"Access" is not the aim of this policy proposal.
Afaik, there was already a proposal which had some common points with
what is described below, and it didn't get anywhere then.
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, n...@kwaoo.ne
on't see any need for that too.
Just to let everyone know we are not "innovating" nothing here. Different
communities already took this step towards extending the period where "new
entrants" are able to get some IPv4 address space.
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
Regards,
Ara
nimal
acceptable" size for that.
So I oppose this proposal.
Noted.
Regards,
Carlos Friaças
22 ???2017 ?.7:50 "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se> ???:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote:
At the current run-rate, do we know wh
59 matches
Mail list logo
