Hi Denis,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:32:02PM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think you are wrong on both your points. Firstly you are making the classic
confusion between RIPE NCC and RIPE. Policies are made by the RIPE community
based on consensual agreement. Once agreed it is expected
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:10:16PM +, ripedenis--- via address-policy-wg
wrote:
It is not only address policy they can veto. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I
understood they can veto any policy they don't like. The internet is critical
infrastructure that impacts the lives of almost
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:36:39PM +0200, Petrit Hasani wrote:
Section 5.3 "Sub-allocations" of the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policies (ripe-733) states:
"Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation and can only be made
from allocations with a status of
Fine with me. Support.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 01:29:04PM +, Erik Bais wrote:
Dear WG,
The AP WG Chairs have seen more than sufficient support to get the policy to
the next phase.
The policy proposal is about extending the IXP pool with an additional /16 from
the
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
Repeating myself a bit[1], I'd say the default should be /29. This because the
/29s are the smallest fragments left behind in the NCC inventory.
I can't see how an IXP with 6 members (including RC/RS) would even
be viable unless
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:26:34PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski via
address-policy-wg wrote:
Except when those other policies detract from the main one. If we can't
maintain an accurate registry, then what's the point?
IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false
dilemma
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 06:01:44PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
I see the situation a little differently:
- if my understanding is correct, you can benefit from pretty much same (or
most of) services with you legacy space as with your PI/PA space, however you
don't really have the same
Hi Gert,
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 05:12:45PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Especially in the government and enterprise market, there's other models
today, like "the government LIR holds a /26, each region in a country
has a /32 out of that, and each region is free to pick their own ISP
to have the
ocations even if SUB-ALLOCATED is not
90% assigned.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
???-Mensaje original-
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck
[ml]" <a...@c4inet.net>
Fecha: mi??rcoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 18:55
Para: Gert Doering <g...@space.n
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 12:17:43AM +, Leo Vegoda wrote:
but it removes the requirement that a LIR provide
connectivity to an End User.
Since when has this been a requirement?
Section 2.4 of ripe-699 defines LIRs and describes them as "primarily"
providing addresses for network services
Hi Gert,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 06:35:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
In other words, decouple the "LIR" function from the "ISP"
function.
Well, that seems to be what Jordi's idea seems to be about - but it
is neither easy nor straightforward how to get there. We've tried
a few years ago,
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
I have several issues with the proposal:
1) It perpetuates what
Hi Elvis,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:42:12PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
What it will do is, for 'transfers' of Legacy space where both the
old and the new holder want to have it verified by the RIPE NCC, both
parties will need to sign a document where parties authorised to sign
will
All,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:39:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-01, "Publish statistics on Intra-RIR Legacy
updates" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to require the RIPE NCC to publish all changes to
the holdership of legacy
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
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
I still oppose this proposal.
Rationale:
1) It creates yet another class of address space when the
goal should be to have only one class.
2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE
community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an
IPv4 "black market", something
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:55:03PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
"explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down
somewhere. Could you provide a reference?
I was sure I'd read an explicit declaration that transfers due to
business transactions do not fall under transfer
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what
conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree
that RIPE policy cannot regulate an organisation's M itself,
but what happens to IP allocations when M happens
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45:31AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the
holdership will to fall under the same restrictions as the
transfers currently, that was pointed out AND discussed since
version 1.
The fact remains that policy has no business
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:46:02PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged
LIRs and are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8
you're fine. It does stop future cases though.
So it puts new entrants at a competitive disadvantage to
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was
On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 02:54:33PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
[x] yes, this makes sense, go there
+1 However: I'd like to see a paragraph defining which resources are
"scarce resources" That way, it is immediately clear which
resources are covered by hold times etc, and more importantly
there
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
At last one I can +1 without much headache.
The idea is not to still have the most unused ipv4 space when
ipv6 is finally the default.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:44:00PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Besides, there's no RIR policy
correct
-- or reason to have one --
Isn't "provide an incentive to actually start deploying ipv6
services" a good enough reason? It is in my book.
It certainly provides a much better reward than having
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Uh, for clarification: I *did* see some opposition, but no "strong
opposition to the proposal in general". The opposition was to some of
the policy changes this brings, and I think it's valuable to discuss
this with the Impact
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:17:04AM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
Before submitting the proposal we would like to have some community
feedback on several aspects :
My thoughts:
1) anything that increases the bureaucracy required to deal with
the NCC for a first allocation is a non-goer.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:49:24PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 15:09, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
If you have some ideas of how to reliably determine "real ipv6
deployment" *AND* write down that criteria in a policy-friendly way,
you're welcome (want
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 02:48:07PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
649 section 6.1 says:
--
This space will be used to run an IXP peering LAN; other uses are forbidden.
--
I actually read that as "This space *as assigned to this
end-user*[...]"
Does IXP space come out of a separate pool from any
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:37:22AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
To clarify here ... although all types of number resources can
be transferred.. ( AS, IPv4, IPv6 ) there are some specific
resources ( like v4 for IXP usage ) are not allowed to be
transferred and MUST be returned..
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:22:09PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
first of all, a large thank-you for handling this policy aggregation. This
will make things a lot easier for organisations to understand how RIPE
transfer policy works. Although policy reworking like this is completely
thankless,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:02:31PM +, Silvia Hagen wrote:
So let's go for balance :-)
I agree. I think a sensible balance may be that allocations /29
are reviewed (as they are now, AIUI) by the IPRA managers and/or
the Board.
There is a danger, in my opinion, that the IPv6
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:17:23PM +, Kennedy, James wrote:
True. If indeed the downstream in this policy statement is in
relation to the hierarchical registry system rather than in BGP
transit terms, then yes PA customer assignments that are routed
separately to the LIR are valid.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 06:24:27PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote:
I forgot one tought in my first mail.
To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks
provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use
either.
Because addresses are leased to users/devices
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if
they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain.
How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain
system can handle it with some minor
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am
making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my
rights to do so.
According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to
appeal a
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:00:00PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
See
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-chair-meeting-summary
item V :)
Way ahead of me, I see. Nice one, thanks to the Chairs.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy
proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what
is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some
of these transfers indeed make the 30x /22
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Most proposals have some rationale against and
a -1 can just as easily be construed to mean I agree with the
rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal.
But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with?
Which
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI
When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
I support this proposal.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Apparently, my point was not very reader friendly, so I'll try again:
Routing-wise, someone with 64 billion billion billion addresses, have about
16 billion billion ways to route the entire IPv4 internet, within the
address space
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:09:16PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
Well, yes, that's why I first wrote This change makes sense
??? I support it. -- Jan
Oh yes, so you did. Should have read further up in the thread...
cheers,
Sascha Luck
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Actually while it was according to the letter of the policy, I
think it will be hard to find someone to actually say it was
according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy. So I'd
challenge the reasonable in your statement.
A LIR now
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
This has already happened before (remember 2007-01?) and it happens
with every change of policy..
2007-01 is a good example of why ex post facto changes are a bad
idea. This was controversial then and is still controversial
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
This is borderline to bad faith.
ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list,
so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of
acting in bad faith.
Yours sincerely,
Sascha Luck
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:00:40PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The proposal aims to expand the criteria for evaluating initial
IPv6 allocations larger than a /29. The RIPE NCC would consider
additional aspects beyond only the number of existing users and
extent of the organisation's
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:05:57AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
What i don't like is the ability for someone to create a new LIR
knowing it will be decommissioned later, because the only intent is to
catch a /22.
You can't prove this intent and creating a company with the
expectation that it
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:34:43PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
This policy is not keep people from opening a new LIR .. it is to keep
people from opening a new LIR and transfer the IP range for profit to
someone else and shutdown the LIR within the first year...
In all the recent 'upheaval' it may
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:36:41PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
and without knowing the background it seems peculiar that APNIC feels it
necessary to consult ARIN about APNIC-RIPE NCC resource transfers.
I reckon APNIC is afraid they will not get transfers from ARIN if
there is a possibility
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:
This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4
for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4
resellers who in turn can protect their prices.
I can't actually see that. The proposal
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:19:04PM +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
The limitation to only one /22 (from the last /8) per LIR has been
approved by this community years ago. Reverting this policy proposal
is a discussion that I would like to see in a separate thread and not
part of the
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:44:06AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
resoures since its inception. I think transfers should be out in the
open, as well. There has been some worry of speculation and hoarding
post IPv4 depletion, with the transfer list out in the open we can all
take a look to check if
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:06:34PM +, Lu wrote:
Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we
need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6
as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6.
It's a fair point, actually. IPv6 should no longer be
53 matches
Mail list logo
