Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi Remco:

I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the
definition of the *need*.

And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the
community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can
afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing
list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help people
learning.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Remco van Mook <remco.vanm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Lu,
>
> just to be clear on this - since your question was a hypothetical one
> about something that might have been policy at some point (but certainly
> not current policy), your question wasn't strictly a policy question, and
> could be very well seen as speculative. Given the subject of your question,
> I can fully understand why people have reservations about this discussion.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Remco
>
>
>
> On 04 Dec 2015, at 10:15 , Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
>
> And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and
> easy.
>
> The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
>
> (I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it
> does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy
> discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, <p...@iiat.ru> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for
>> “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic
>> locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to
>> another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request)
>> did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first
>> question.
>>
>> The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the
>> locations did not change *the need* for the assigned /24, so the answer
>> to the question should be the same as the previous one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vladislav Potapov
>>
>> Ru.iiat
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
>> Behalf Of *Lu Heng
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM
>> *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
>> *Subject:* [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>
>> I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
>> need" policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an
>> assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few
>> examples, please provide your view:
>>
>>
>>
>> First one:
>>
>>
>>
>> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A,
>> Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under
>> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his
>> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same
>> customer, does the company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does
>> this action considered invalid the original assignment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Second one:
>>
>>
>>
>> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and
>> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the
>> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2
>> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to
>> RIR?
>>
>>
>>
>> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as
>> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of
>> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does
>> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream
>> providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as
>> change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
>>
>>
>>
>> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Kind regards.
>> Lu
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
> feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the
> definition of the *need*.
> 
> And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the
> community should help people understand how things work, not everybody can
> afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training, mailing
> list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help people
> learning.

This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies,
and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies.

Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an
ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to
that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you).

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgp2i14FVlbZF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Lu,

> Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
> 
> And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.
> 
> The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.

Glad you are happy with that answer. I just want to state for the record that 
any answer on this topic given on this mailing list does not represent any 
official interpretation of the policy and is as such non-authoritative :)  
Official interpretations are only given in the Impact Analysis of a policy 
proposal.

> (I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does 
> not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy 
> discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).

Nothing personal, and both Gert and I have answered your question as well as we 
could. Things are more complex than this answer shows though. For example 
changing the geographical location by itself might not make the 'need' invalid, 
but any changes in who/what the addresses are connected to might etc. These 
things are determined on a case-by-case basis by the hostmasters/IPRAs.

That is why we don't discuss specific cases on the mailing list. A mailing list 
never has the full data, and speculating what hostmasters would decide would 
undermine their work. We have an arbitration system for cases where people 
disagree.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi Sander:

Thanks for the reply and the discussion was started in one of the RIR
meetings, and I am just asking community view(not official in any way of
course) of this as part of globe view on the *need*, as it is an shared
concept for every RIR.

I think I have the answer I wanted here now and I appreciate everyone's
input, if any future contribution or disagreement I still welcome of
course, if you afraid generate noise in the list you are welcome to email
me personally.

But one thing I do hope is, don't let people afraid generate noise here in
the list, let people ask dum question here, I come across quite few young
people that really afraid to say anything in this list, just because they
afraid to make mistake...this really isn't the case I hope.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Lu,
>
> > Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.
> >
> > And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and
> easy.
> >
> > The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.
>
> Glad you are happy with that answer. I just want to state for the record
> that any answer on this topic given on this mailing list does not represent
> any official interpretation of the policy and is as such non-authoritative
> :)  Official interpretations are only given in the Impact Analysis of a
> policy proposal.
>
> > (I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it
> does not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy
> discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).
>
> Nothing personal, and both Gert and I have answered your question as well
> as we could. Things are more complex than this answer shows though. For
> example changing the geographical location by itself might not make the
> 'need' invalid, but any changes in who/what the addresses are connected to
> might etc. These things are determined on a case-by-case basis by the
> hostmasters/IPRAs.
>
> That is why we don't discuss specific cases on the mailing list. A mailing
> list never has the full data, and speculating what hostmasters would decide
> would undermine their work. We have an arbitration system for cases where
> people disagree.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

(This will be my last post in the list about this topic)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I can assure you it is not speculative(and I apologise if I give this
> > feeling in any way), it was an pure "academic" discussion about the
> > definition of the *need*.
> >
> > And btw I do believe people are allowed to ask dum question here and the
> > community should help people understand how things work, not everybody
> can
> > afford to go to RIPE meeting and not everybody can go to training,
> mailing
> > list remain the cheapest and most effective way still today to help
> people
> > learning.
>
> This mailing list has a very specific focus: forming of new policies,
> and discussion and answering questions about *existing* policies.
>
> Historic excursions are *not* on-topic, unless it's relevant for an
> ongoing policy discussion (which this is not, we'll never return to
> that state of IPv4 plentiness - which I already told you).
>

I think I know we won't return to the state of IPv4 plentiness fairly well,
really not needed anyone tell me that.

But the question was about understanding a long existed concept.

If such question, in which I believe I do have certain amount of clue about
the policy already, was not even allowed to posted in this list. where else
on this planet you can discuss and learn RIPE policy(understand past policy
are equally important as understand the current one for one to really
understand the policy development process)? Are we really only open doors
to the person can afford to go to RIPE meeting every time? I find it is
almost impossible to learn RIPE policy and discuss it in the real life, no
one knows RIPE, my current amount of knowledge are from my 10 plus Ripe
meetings and going to training at my company's cost, in which I believe it
will be very hard to apply to every one at my age.  we already discuss
about aging of the RIPE community, we really really need to allow people to
ask dum question here but not kicking off anything the list that you think
it is no use(and I appreciate your answer of course).

This subject can concluded by one or few answers on the simple matter, it
does not need to be that long. The time you spend on arguing with me about
relevance, the question is already concluded.

And moreover such argument are beyond my question and I am very
disappointed I need to spend more time to discuss "can I discuss policy
here" rather than to my real question.




> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

Thanks Vladislav for the clear answer.

And for the list, this is an answer I would like to receive, clear and easy.

The example was very simple so I was expecting an simple answer as well.

(I got an feeling that anything I say in the list was wrong, I hope it does
not become personal again, I am asking a policy question in a policy
discussion mailing list and nothing more than that).

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:10 AM, <p...@iiat.ru> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> To answer your question you can look at the obsoleted forms used for
> “registering” an assignment. There was no particular points to geographic
> locations of a network, so relocation the untouched set of assets to
> another place (or even changing them in the margins of the initial request)
> did not require a new request/notification. It was the answer to the first
> question.
>
> The second question is more complex. But it seems removing one of the
> locations did not change *the need* for the assigned /24, so the answer
> to the question should be the same as the previous one.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vladislav Potapov
>
> Ru.iiat
>
>
>
> *From:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Lu Heng
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:27 PM
> *To:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> *Subject:* [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
> need" policy.
>
>
>
> We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an assignment,
> while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
>
>
>
> The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few
> examples, please provide your view:
>
>
>
> First one:
>
>
>
> Company A provides 100 customer dedicated server service at location A,
> Ripe makes an assignment for 100 IP for his infrastructure, if, under
> condition that no other factor was changed, Company A moved his
> infrastructure to location B, but still providing same service to same
> customer, does the company's action need to be notified  to RIR? And does
> this action considered invalid the original assignment?
>
>
>
> Second one:
>
>
>
> Company A provides web hosting service, but any casted in 3 location, and
> has provided the evidence of 3 location to the RIR during the time the
> company getting valid assignment, then A decided to cut 3 location to 2
> location, does this invalid original assignment and need to be notified to
> RIR?
>
>
>
> So the bottom line is, what is the definition of need, is it defined as
> the service you are providing or defined as whole package of any of
> original justification material was provided, if was the later, then does
> it imply that anything, including location of the infrastructure, upstream
> providers etc has changed due to operational need, it will be considered as
> change of purpose of use and need to be notified to RIR?
>
>
>
> What should be the right interpretation of the policy by then?
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Leo Vegoda]

Lu Heng wrote:

[...]

> If such question, in which I believe I do have certain amount of clue 
> about the policy already, was not even allowed to posted in this list. 
> where else on this planet you can discuss and learn RIPE policy
> (understand past policy are equally important as understand the current 
> one for one to really understand the policy development process)? 

The list you probably wanted was ripe-l...@ripe.net:

"This mailing list is intended for RIPE-related general announcements and 
discussions."

History and speculation probably fit better on that list than this one.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ripe-list

Regards,

Leo

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Lu,
>
> > I have an policy question regarding Ripe policy before adoption of "no
> need" policy.
>
> I don't see the usefulness of second-guessing how obsolete policy would
> have been applied. Can you explain the relevance to current policy
> development?
>

Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still need
to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do
not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
develop future?

As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in
our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
development.

If this list is patient enough, we won't have people coming back over and
over again with asking NCC to be police force, reclamation of resources.

Also in the Ripe meeting with the younger people I've talked to, many of
them do not understand how the policy being developed today because there
is no start point, we ware not there since it started, not there for over
two decades like many friends here.

One day someone interested about policy development searching for future
understanding of the *need*, will see it has been blocked to discuss here.

I hope it does not happen.

>
> > We all know that before the no need policy, when Ripe makes an
> assignment, while the "need" has changed, the assignment become invalid.
>
> RIPE NCC only would assign provider independent resources. To LIRs RIPE
> NCC would allocate resources and then verify policy requirements, such as
> need, when the LIR makes assignments from the allocation.
>
> > The question come to what the definition of need. Below I have few
> examples, please provide your view:
>
> I am not going into the details of your examples as they are no longer
> relevant to current policy development. In general: assignments are quite
> specific. As an LIR you assign resources to your own infrastructure or a
> specific customer. Whenever any of that changes (i.e. customers changing,
> expansion of networks etc) it would be considered a new assignment which
> would require new justification (need etc).
>

I believe it is relevant as I have explained above.

>
> So the correct thing to do in the database (to keep things a bit relevant)
> would be to delete the old assignments and create new ones. That would keep
> the history nice and clean (old object would be for the old assignment, new
> object with new creation date would be for the new assignment).
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
"Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about
situations and concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region...
Let's stop this discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy."

This is a pure policy discussion and not relevant to the region really,
need exists or existed in every region.

"It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the
first place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then
you can't just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't
part of the condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are
completely dependent on the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have
any needs criteria anymore so this is all hypothetical."

all the assignment for an "service", in which what confuse me is "does RIR
also manage the infrastructure detail for the service"?

No offense here in anyway, as I repeated said, I just trying to understand
*need*. that's it.


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi Gert:

I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.

If you read my last Email, I have tried my best to ask that very specific
question.

*So the bottom line is, what does *need* mean? Does it means the whole
package of justification material(so including everything submitted during
the evaluation process for the assignment, including but not limit to the
upstream's contract, location of the server, etc), or does it means the
*service* was provided, LIR can free justify it's own infrastructure(e.g.
move server from DC A to DC B to improve speed) to provide same service to
the same customer group?*

*Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then
by definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of
the server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the
assignment again therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the
infrastructure adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have
assignment window), because the need has changed.*

Sorry about my English that I can not put it in one sentence, and needed
example to help explain, but my question are very very specific and not for
the beer time.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> > Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still
> need
> > to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we
> do
> > not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
> > develop future?
>
> I do not think that this is particularily relevant here.  The status
> "we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different
> ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different
> that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.
>
> If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.
>
> But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff
> are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this
> at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.
>
> > As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element
> in
> > our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
> > development.
>
> Not in this vagueness.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Nick Hilliard]

On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people. 

you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very
specific answer.

> the only way to be more specific would be naming people. 

which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with
the RIPE NCC.

If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the
matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts
available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being
handled by the RIPE NCC.  In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.

If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an
case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent
Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.

Nick

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:33:22PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote:
> Yes, for old folks here, things seems obvious,  but I believe we still need
> to have next generation people here to participate the discussion, if we do
> not understand where we ware coming from, how we understand the way to
> develop future?

I do not think that this is particularily relevant here.  The status 
"we have plenty of IPv4 but need to ensure fairness between different
ISPs' customers" will not come back - and IPv6 is significantly different
that not much can be learned by IPv4's restrictive policies.

If you have a specific question, you're welcome to ask.  

But generic "what if... and can you remember the good old times?" stuff 
are just noise to most of the participants of the list - so, discuss this
at a beer with others who are interested, but not here.

> As I have explained in my last Email, understanding of some key element in
> our past policy will help us going future with our current policy
> development.

Not in this vagueness.

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


pgph1XexgoMJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> > here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very
> specific answer.
>

I've tried to provide more details, and tried my best to ask the specific
question, if there is an understanding/language issue, I apologize,  but
only pointing at me saying I am asking a vague question without future
exploring the detail in which I will try my best to explain, does not help
any thing really.

If a new guy came to ask an dum question, I think the best way is try to
understand what he really trying to ask and help to answer it. but not" you
are vague we don't understand go away). if that is the case, it really
would take genius to join this community because all new guy's question
will be dum at some point.


>
> > the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with
> the RIPE NCC.
>
> If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the
> matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts
> available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being
> handled by the RIPE NCC.  In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.
>
> If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an
> case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent
> Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.
>

Simply not true here.

>
> Nick
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

Re: [address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Lu,

> Because if *need* includes whole package of justification material, then by 
> definition, change any thing in that package(for example, location of the 
> server, upstream provider), would request NCC approval for the assignment 
> again

It depends what the conditions were for getting the assignment in the first 
place. If you were allowed to make an assignment for reason X then you can't 
just change X. You can change Y and Z, as long as they weren't part of the 
condition. What those fictional X, Y and Z might be are completely dependent on 
the actual policy, and for addresses we don't have any needs criteria anymore 
so this is all hypothetical.

> therefore effectively requested NCC to manage all the infrastructure 
> adjustment by it's members(assure the LIR do not have assignment window), 
> because the need has changed.

Are you still talking about RIPE NCC here? You are talking about situations and 
concepts that seem to have nothing to do with our region... Let's stop this 
discussion on hypothetical impact of hypothetical policy.

Cheers,
Sander