Re: [address-policy-wg] New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC

Dear colleagues, apologies for the second email but it appears I forgot to actually add a link to the article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/remco-van-mook/building-a-stable-future-for-the-ripe-ncc/ Building a Stable Future for the RIPE NCC labs.ripe.net Kind regards Remco van Mook RIPE NCC

[address-policy-wg] New RIPE Labs Article - Building a stable future for the RIPE NCC

a BOF during RIPE 88 on this topic as well and am looking forward to a constructive discussion! Kind regards, Remco van Mook RIPE NCC Executive Board -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] Chair re-appointment - RIPE86

Strong support for both. Thanks Leo and James for your work. Remco On Wed, 17 May 2023, 10:52 Erik Bais, wrote: > Dear Working group, > > As you might remember, the WG Chairs are appointed for a set term as that > reminds us now and then, for both the WG Chair as the WG, to think about if >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs)

to change the default IXP location size to something smaller (/25, /26, /27?) once the process on the current proposal has been concluded. (With apologies to Radu for stealing his thread to reply) Kind regards Remco van Mook > On 12 Aug 2019, at 10:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > wrote: >

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

I support this version of the policy proposal - all of my concerns I've voiced previously have been addressed. Remco > On 27 sep. 2016, at 15:08, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03: trading the last /22?

Hi Elvis, > On 20 Jun 2016, at 12:53 , Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > Hi Gert, > > I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than > the proposer :) Since I'm the proposer I might as well respond. You know full well I'm capable of defending myself in

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Radu, > On 17 Jun 2016, at 22:18 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 21:09, Remco van Mook wrote: >> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because >> the change itself

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Stefan, > On 17 Jun 2016, at 19:32 , Stefan Prager wrote: > > There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after > 14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out > before the 15th September 2012. There is also no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Thank you Marco. Dear all, I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version. Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"*

[address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Dear all, as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Radu-Adrian, can you please clarify and substantiate this part of your response? > > This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to transforming > RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if it will not be > RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old LIRs" getting

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Jerome, > On 17 May 2016, at 16:26 , Jérôme Nicolle wrote: > > Hello, > > I firmly oppose this policy proposal for the following reasons : I will try to address your objections below: > > * Interference with routing > > I always understood RIPE NCC must not consider

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 17 May 2016, at 14:33 , Denis Fondras wrote: > > Hello all, > >> >> - Allocations marked as 'ALLOCATED FINAL' can not be transferred or >> sub-allocated; > > Will current 'ALLOCATED PA' be changed to 'ALLOCATED FINAL' ? > For allocations handed out after 'final /8'

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Arash, > On 10 May 2016, at 03:18 , Arash Naderpour wrote: > > Remco, <> > > Calling anyone supporting a policy delusional is not really helping the > discussion we have here, you can still express your own opinion without using > that. > you can't have it both

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Dear colleagues, I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a

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

Dear all, thank you Erik for providing this helpful summary - although I do not think I was quite as indefinite in my concerns as you put in your summary :) I'll keep it simple and straightforward this time to prevent any confusion. 1) There is no need to restructure our set of policies based

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

Hi all, (all hats off) While I am highly sympathetic to harmonising transfer policies across all resources, I object to the proposal as written. The really short reason is as follows (and I quote) [The following policy will replace: - Sections 5.5 and 6.4 in ripe-649, "IPv4 Address

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 9:35 PM Ciprian Nica wrote: > > I totally agree with Remco except this point. I know a large european > telco that already has bought ~ 2 million IPs so they would be able to > justify the need for a very large chunk. And, besides that the >

Re: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers

(all hats off) If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work, when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy giving you a /22. And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself. Remco On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert

Re: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfers in the RIPE NCC Service Region

Three years and one day ago, I wrote on this very list: ...Personally I'm rather sick and tired of hearing people say 'yes, let's break IPv4 so we all MUST move to IPv6'. If you think this is good policy or even good engineering, please think again. It will make us end up with a broken internet