Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi, try to minimize barrier to entry. Thanks, those were the words I was looking for. Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive. Short enough for you? And intentionally running out and limiting entry to 0 addresses is ... ? Cheers, Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Randy, try to minimize barrier to entry. Thanks, those were the words I was looking for. Cheers, Sander

[address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process

Hi Working Group, We finally have a final draft for the working group chair selection process. Sorry for taking so long. Here is the text we propose to use: --- The RIPE Address Policy Working Group aims to maintain a team of two Chairpersons whenever possible. # Electing a chairperson Once

Re: [address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process

Hi working group, As promised here is a slightly modified version of the chair selection text: --- The RIPE Address Policy Working Group aims to maintain a team of two Chairpersons whenever possible. # Selecting a chairperson Once a year one of the chairs will step down, allowing new

Re: [address-policy-wg] aggregating unused allocations

Hi, Since global routing table has exceeded 50 prefixes and expected to grow more maybe RIPE community should rethink permitting the exchange of smaller IPv4 blocks with contiguous one. One thing to keep in mind is that this would make it possible for e.g. spammers to exchange two

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hello Saeed, Now, isn't it possible, that RIPE NCC develops a policy ( maybe there one ) to take back these advertised address spaces ? because their initial criteria is not valid any more ? ( obviously those organization, do not need these address spaces. ) I can understand LEASING

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Sasha, A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the spirit of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the spirit either, otherwise this proposal

[address-policy-wg] Working group chair rotation 1

Hello working group, As we now have a working group chair rotation/selection process in place it is time to start that process for the first time! After long deliberation (a.k.a. a random number generator) we have decided that Gert is going to be the first chair to step down. He will do so at

[address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process: consensus

Hi working group, The last call for the working group chair selection process has ended and no further comments were received. Therefore the working group chairs hereby declare consensus for the process. Cheers, Sander Gert

[address-policy-wg] 2014-05 - end of last call (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)

Hello working group, The last call period for proposal 2014-05 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) has ended. In this phase no new feedback has been sent to the working group and the working group chairs have therefore concluded that the consensus as previously announced

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

Hi, What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers. One option is to get 8 freifunk

[address-policy-wg] Consensus on 2015-01

objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

Re: [address-policy-wg] Consensus on 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Steffann san...@steffann.nl het volgende geschreven: And this time with a fixed subject line so that it is clearly visible which policy proposal we are talking about :) Op 22 jun. 2015, om 12:10 heeft Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl het volgende geschreven: Hello working group, Here

Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

Hi, Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. Indeed. I am staying out of this discussion and I will limit myself to judging on consensus or not. I admit

Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC

Hi Sasha, Another thing that may help is to move away from mailing lists as the sole tool - email is something that only old farts like myself are really comfortable with, not to mention very open to abuse as we've seen. There are more modern collaboration tools available, something like

Re: [address-policy-wg] Promote the use of IRC

Hi, Op 12 aug. 2015, om 15:24 heeft remco van mook remco.vanm...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: +1 on on everything that Jim just said. You're welcome to discuss any policy anywhere - in a pub, on IRC, on Facebook, other industry events, you name it - (and I know almost all of you

Re: [address-policy-wg] Final consensus on 2015-01: Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hi Petr, I mean the next Frome: Ingrid Wijte ing...@ripe.net Date: 3 March 2015 г. 12:52 Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Receives a /13 from IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool To: ncc-annou...@ripe.net [...] With the current policy in place, the RIPE NCC will receive one-fifth of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hello Yuri, No consensus was reached. Yes there was. I declared so a few days ago. If you truly believe that my decision to do that was wrong then please follow the Appeals procedure described in section 4 of our PDP (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642) but please stop repeating

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) - “subsequent allocations”

Hello Annette, the LIR-team of de.government supports this current policy proposal “2015-03 New Draft Document”. +1 In addition we also made up our mind about the resulting inconsistency to the criteria for subsequent allocations. Therefore we plan to propose a “follow-up” proposal

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

Hi, > Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > het volgende geschreven: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote: >> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're >> out, ...?" > > Because it's NOT. Not yet.

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

Hello working group, > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 Thanks to Marco and the rest of the RIPE NCC for this extensive impact analysis. This impact analysis uncovers a very serious issue that has slipped

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)

Hi Mathew, I'll note that both authors' LIRs (uk.mod and de.kaufland) already hold an IPv6 /29 allocation each...so assuming the proposal was intended to help scratch an itch of their own, so to speak, perhaps this is simply an omission? It was our (uk.mod's) expectation/assumption that it

Re: [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

Hi, > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22) > 3.1 introduce some minimum delay after the last allocation : 12 months > (Elvis' favourite) ? 18 Months ? 24 Months (my favourite) ? More ? Less > ? None ? >3.1.1 Does that mean one can get a new allocation every X months >

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Aled, > Sorry yes, I was clumsy in my wording. No apologies required! I just wanted to make sure that everybody reading the messages (and archives) understands the difference. Some things are obvious for people who have been around for some time but can be confusing to those who haven't. I

Re: [address-policy-wg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: IPv4 reserved space

Hi Arash, > As an example in Iran there is only one exit point (AS12880 and AS48159 > belongs to one organization) from country to global carriers controlled by > government and as they have no LI platform yet on IPv6 there is simply no > IPv6 service availability or possibility for Iranian

Re: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

Hi Nick, > Is there any possibility of creating a FAQ? There are a bunch of > issues which are coming up repeatedly, of which this is one. I agree. There are many things that the people who have been involved for a long time know, but which might not be obvious for others. I'll see if I can

Re: [address-policy-wg] [apwg-chairs] Create FAQ? (was: Re: IPv4 reserved space)

> A little while ago, Marla Azinger and I wrote this document to describe some > of the issues: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6319.txt Thanks Leo! Sander

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

Hi Sasha, > RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and > what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the > PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the > "community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate > themselves the right to

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

Hi Sasha, > The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the > business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for > that reason alone. RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE

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

Hi Radu, >>> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE >> >> ??? > > https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa > > ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request. Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed arguments about

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

Hi, > Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed > arguments about ALLOCATED PI. My auto-complete is getting too used to IPv6 terminology ;) s/-local/./ Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

Hi Mikael, > I just had a thought. > > What we're trying to do is to make sure there are IPv4 addresses available to > new entrants. We're trying to do this by making a LIR get one post-exhaustion > /22 each. The LIR fee is the limiting factor in trying to stop people from > getting many

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

Hi Randy, > i have had an epiphany! RIR stands for Rinse and Infinite Repeat. this > expains it all. i feel much better now. Good one ;) Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Hi Patrick, > What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? > Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL" :-) Nope, only the allocation will get a different status. The LIR can still use it like before, assign from it etc. Cheers, Sander signature.asc

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

Hi Riccardo, > If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy > example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before > 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of > allocation from who didn't. Every LIR can receive

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

Hi Payam, > My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers > rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably > without proper justification] > I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst > and he declined our

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

Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :) Here is the rest: Hi Payam, > My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers > rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably > without proper justification] > I remember

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

Hi, > Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you > by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks. > Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself. I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get from RIPE NCC. How is

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

Hello Stefan, > Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward > any longer than it already has Excuse me, but that is not your call to make. Sander APWG co-chair signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Hi Stefan, > Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, > I would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down > to just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve > months they will need to pay an additional

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

Hi Radu, Thank you for providing concrete cases! This is now something that can be discussed. > Three: > - That other LIR opens up a second LIR > - They get their /22 (free) > - They can no longer apply "M" because the definition of "M" > changed, and they have to do a regular transfer. > > On

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

Hi Riccardo, >>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified >>> >> Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed >> in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep >> the database information accurate and to get some unused

Re: [address-policy-wg] Support for 2016-03 v2.0

Hi Yuri, > If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL. > And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for > usage even they work as with PIs as PI. > reserved space also will be FINAL. > > But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and

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

Hi Riccardo, > Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against > speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. There is none, please stop repeating that. > I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be? This is a ridiculous statement.

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

Hi Nick, Not speaking in favour or against this proposal, just thinking about the possible effects: > I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE > registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources. > Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers;

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

Hi Aleksey, > And will lose his money The money is a membership fee that allowed them to hold resources while they were a member. Stop being a member = stop holding resources. Allocations are for running networks with, not making money... Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message

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

Hi, > My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 > for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those > who really require IP, can get IP. I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous allocation policy and would

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

Hi Ricardo, > If your read again 2015-05 you can easily find out that is not so silly. > Currently the only reasonable objection about 2015-05 is that may (I > underline may) speed up the allocation rate. > Please note that this ojection is based on the insinuation [...] Ok, this is enough.

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

Hi Tore, > In order to facilitate growing your business beyond three customers, [...] Please don't exaggerate like that. I understand what you mean, but please don't make it personal. > In any case, it is inevitable that at some point in time the RIPE NCC will > simply not have any IPv4

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

Hi Ricardo, > I am not expecting consensum. I just want to be serius about the > considerations and the discussion that can come to some costructive for > everyone. We have had that discussion here on the list. Let's finish this with a constructive discussion on Thursday. > Someone choosed

[address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG sessions at RIPE 72

to change anything, please let us know. The distribution of items to the two timeslot is somewhat subject to the time spent on discussion - but we'll try to stick to what's published. regards, Sander Steffann, Gert Döring APWG chairs

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

Hi everybody, > We have had that discussion here on the list. Let's finish this with a > constructive discussion on Thursday. The RIPE meeting has just started its second day, and my brain has already melted down. s/Thursday/Wednesday/ Repeat: the session is on WEDNESDAY Sorry for the

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hello Ehsan, > we are agree about the Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision proposal . > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 thank you for expressing your support. However, at this point in the discussion we have seen enough support but not enough work solving the

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

Hi Peter, > My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available > pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor > should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available > from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more

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

Hi, > Op 12 mei 2016, om 15:48 heeft Randy Bush het volgende > geschreven: > > it's not just our grandchildren. if the last /8 policy had not been put > in place and taken seriously, *today's* new LIRs might not be able to get > IPv4 space. True. Without the current policy

[address-policy-wg] Draft agenda for RIPE 72

to stick to what's published. regards, Sander Steffann, Gert Döring, APWG chairs -- Wednesday, 09:00-10:30 -- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking

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

Hi Riccardo, > Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such > policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time? I can answer that one. For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8.

Re: [address-policy-wg] I support this policy

Hello, Welcome this this working group. Might I ask you to introduce yourself? Your info@ email address and the lack of a name in your message make it difficult to understand who you are. > I support this policy Which policy are you talking about? Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description:

Re: [address-policy-wg] Disabuse

Hi Borhan, > My name is Borhan Habibi and my company name is Rayanravesh Sena, I sent my > first email without noticing it has wrong from address field, so thought it > would be better to resend it with my own name. FYI: Your mail client still send mail from Rayanravesh Sena

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

Hi Elvis, >> I've had easier discussion to judge, and less repetitive-nonsensical ones. > > it says awaiting decision from proposer and not from WG Chairs. That is why I > was asking the proposer. Just for clarity, this is what the PDP says: > [RIPE-642 section 2.2] > At the end of the

[address-policy-wg] 2016-05 going to last-call (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)

consensus and asked the RIPE NCC to move the proposal to the Last Call phase. The positive feedback to the current version was from: - John Collins - Ian Dickinson - Sascha Knabe - Martin Krengel - Frank Meyer - Mathew Newton Thanks to the working group for working on this proposal, Sander Steffann

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Hi Ingrid, > If there is a /16 “ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED” block that contains "real" Provider > Independent assignments, that /16 would indeed be split in order to carve out > that assignment. The LIR would end up with multiple PA allocations instead of > one /16. The PI resource holder would be

Re: [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses

Hi, > "non-continuous IPv4 blocks be exchanged for the equivalent size in a single > continuous IPv4 block" I think the problem with this is that it let's spammers exchange dirty blocks for clean blocks. Cheers, Sander smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, > Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler het > volgende geschreven: > > Ciprian > > You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. > > This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an

[address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Hello working group, The discussion on how the RIPE NCC should deal with ALLOCATED PI / ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED has died down a couple of weeks ago. We therefore think that it is time to draw conclusions. A total of 16 people and the working group chairs participated in the discussion following

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Hello Elvis, > Therefore, I think that the RIPE NCC should talk to every single company > holding a PI assignment from an ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED block and give > them the option to give up on the maintenance of the IPs (and the right > to transfer/sell) and transform them into ASSIGNED PA, or

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Erik, > Going into that kind of thinking would be similar to not allowing external > voice calls to IPv6 PI assigned phones, because some third party should be > able to make use of it.. > > This discussion is different if we are actually (commercially) hosting > services on a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Arash, > I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they > have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the > prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region > to other RIRs today? Good question. I'm sure the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, > Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and > made this mess. Please read my previous post. > Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk and many many more who requested > huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit. > > Thanks

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Sorry, bad auto correct: > [...] need to come up with arguments and valid training That should be "reasoning" > that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild > and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful That should be "not useful" > for the policy

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Kai, > So, since anything _above_ /64 (e. g. /65 to /128) would be whitewashed by > the proposal, using a whole /48 PA or PI for /64s for WiFis would be ok, as > long as each WiFi user only gets less than a /64 »assigned«? That's what the proposal currently says. > Proposal states:

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Leo, > So prefix delegation is OK as long as the prefix is longer than a /64? Technically that's what the proposal is currently proposing. I'm curious about the opinions of working group members about that. Cheers, Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Arash, > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now > looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should > not be supported by 2016-03. I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining pool is not drained by

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Ciprian, > I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not waste > it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi Radu-Adrian, > ... and this is where technical implementation comes and messes things > up > If you are functioning in "subscriber management" mode, you equipment > may impose you that each subscriber has its own subnet for > interconnection (mine does) - obvious choice being a /64. I

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

Hello Ciprian, > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done with > resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's scope > and start a new one with proper debates over this issue. Please leave it to the chairs to determine what is in scope for

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

Hi Ciprian, > There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to > address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his > customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't > understand english very well and many times they would

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

Hi Ciprian, > Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for > the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem > adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on > behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hello Sergey, > If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 > networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. You seem to misunderstand how this works. It is the community that sets these policies, not the NCC. The RIPE NCC implements what the internet community

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Mikael, > These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it > wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 > without this policy. > > So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were > saved to be used under

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

Hello Marius, > Over the last years RIPE NCC has imposed a "rule" that when the last IPs are > transferred the transferring LIR has to pay the full annual membership fee > (even if the LIR was not a member of RIPE for that entire year). I think that > if this is something everybody agrees

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

Hello Marius, > Thank you for the explanations, but I believe you haven't really addressed > the issues I mentioned. > The first issue is ABOUT Transfer Policies, to pay the annual membership fee > after you TRANSFER ALL YOUR RESOURCES and maybe even close your Company, is > about Transfer

[address-policy-wg] Proceeding with proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification)

Hello working group, The end of the discussion phase of proposal 2016-04 (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment clarification) has been reached. At this point in the PDP the proposer, in agreement with the working group chairs, decides whether to move forward. The chairs have determined that we have general

Re: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)

d by the RIPE NCC, who will then pass it on to the DTCM. The data will be permanently deleted from the RIPE NCC infrastructure one week after the RIPE 75 Meeting. Cheers, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

[address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)

planning to present their policy. Attendees speaking at the microphones during the Q are explicitly not considered as speakers. Regards, Gert Doering & Sander Steffann, APWG chairs ---

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, > So again, why do they rely on v4 (only) ? I really want to understand > hurdles on european continent. I think the hurdles are roughly the same in all regions. Relying on only IPv4 is insanity, and those that do so deserve no sympathy. But as you have personally experienced IPv6 isn't

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, > Op 24 sep. 2017, om 20:42 heeft Randy Bush het volgende > geschreven: > They are beyond help >>> >>> not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and >>> other NATs of many flavors. >> >> Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2017-03, New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hi, > Op 24 sep. 2017, om 04:55 heeft Randy Bush het volgende > geschreven: > >> They are beyond help > > not at all. the vendors are more than happy to sell them CGNs, and > other NATs of many flavors. Sorry, I should have specified "from a IPv4 allocation policy point of

Re: [address-policy-wg] Agenda for APWG in Dubai (v1)

Noted, we'll refer people to anti abuse when discussing open policy proposals. Marco: I assume this is already on your list, but please double check :) Cheers, Sander > Op 25 sep. 2017 om 14:02 heeft Malcolm Hutty het volgende > geschreven: > > Dear WG Chairs, > > This is

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

Hi Jordi, > I think Jan comments (in the meeting, hopefully he can repeat here) are very > relevant, and I’ve a draft policy proposal in that direction, I’m waiting for > my co-author review to submit it. If you are talking about a RIPE policy proposal: please don't. Having multiple

Re: [address-policy-wg] WG chair change

Hi Sean, > In the interest of easing consensus in the address policy community, I would > like to withdraw my candidacy for WG chair. I strongly encourage everyone to > support Erik as the future WG chair based on the significant work he has done > for the community over the last several

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

Hi Jordi, > The point is not only the PDP, as I believe we are still on time to correct > the policy proposal, which I think is broken and contradicting itself. > > See my last email on the details, and a proposed text to resolve it, which > according to the PDP, we can still apply I think We

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

Hi, > My reading of PDP 2.4 is [..] Please stop being a lawyer. I have told you how we do things in this working group. Please listen to what the chairs are telling you. > My reason to re-raise those now, is because they become evident when you > compare the proposed 2.6 change with the

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

Hi Jordi, > “Providing another entity with separate addresses (up to /64) from a subnet > used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a > sub-assignment. This includes for example, letting visitors and/or employees > (BYOD) connect to the assignment holder's network,

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

Hi Jordi, > [Jordi] I think we are in-sync, but your response clearly demonstrates that > there is a need for clarifying the text. > -> Policy proposal “Providing another entity with separate addresses (not > prefixes)” > -> a /64 is a prefix Technically, because the router is the PI holder's,

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

Hi, > 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data > centers? Indeed, this is what I asked Marco. > 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 >

Re: [address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04 (was: what does consensus mean)

Hi Jim, > PLEASE put those comments in a different thread which makes it clear you're > discussing detail about 2016-4 (or whatever). Thanks. > > This thread's supposed to be about an entirely different topic. Indeed, my apologies. There were so many things going on that I lost track as well

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

Hi, > Below in-line. Please use normal quoting, I have trouble reading your emails. > Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer > to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 > addresses for End User devices and services ..."

  1   2   >