Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Sorry new message on 2015-01. No consensus was reached. Even on RIPE website information that nothing interesting and good in that proposal https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 --- After analyzing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented. --- But everybody here just understood that nobody listen to them. Yes. It's good idea to submit new policy canceling this one policy or making it better! But if nobody listen to members why to do so? Yuri@ip4market On 26.07.2015 19:43, Sander Steffann wrote: Hello David, Hello, The allocations made before the date of this announcement, should be governed by the old politics. The *transfers* made before the date of the announcement are handled by the old transfer policies, transfers made after that are made according to the new policy. The date the allocation was made is not relevant to determining which transfer policy is applied. Please stop discussing 2015-01 and its implementation. We have reached consensus and the policy has been implemented. If you want to change anything please submit a new policy proposal. Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
But everybody here just understood that nobody listen to them. Yes. It's good idea to submit new policy canceling this one policy or making it better! But if nobody listen to members why to do so? Democracy sucks sometimes... unfortunately, most participants in the list weighed the arguments and were in support of the policy change - and considering the wailing done by several people who make money by trading IPs, it may be a first successful step towards abuse of the policies for IP address transfer ... I reckon we can get the additional loopholes fixed in the next proposal - and I doubt they will turn out to reverse the change ... -garry
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 yourself on this mailing list. Cheers, Sander PS: my apologies for repeating myself, but I want to make sure that everybody understands how this works so that we (the chairs) don't get blamed over and over again for not listening to the community. We do listen, and we do make honest decisions, and we will fully cooperate with any appeals procedure if people feel we wronged them. PPS: sorry for a PS section that is longer than the main content
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented?(Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Gert Doering (Funny that people didn't complain when we changed the IPv6 allocation policy to permit /35 holders to extend their existing allocation to a /32 just by asking for it - *that* was a retroactive change of policy...) Indeed. Or when we allowed transfers in the first place. Or when we allowed LIRs to make end-user assignments without filling in forms. Or when we further extended the /32 to /29 to accomodate for 6RD. Or when we allowed people to register any number of end-user assignments as a single AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object. Or... Tore
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hello, I do not see any wrong cases here. When my company obtained our address block in 1998 there was one set of policies, since then the policies have been evolved a lot. Nobody asks you to return your address space or changes its USAGE rules, it's only transfer delays, not more, not less. Regards, Vladislav Potapov От: r...@europeiptv.netmailto:r...@europeiptv.net Отправлено: 25.07.2015 19:29 Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.netmailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net Тема: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hello, I do not see that the political right have retroactive effect, is not very democratic change the rules of what was received with other policies, but if I see the correct application of this policy to allocations received after this announcement, how do you see? Best Regards David IPTV EUROPE LTD.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented?(Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:14:51PM +0100, r...@europeiptv.net wrote: Hello, I do not see that the political right have retroactive effect, is not very democratic change the rules of what was received with other policies, but if I see the correct application of this policy to allocations received after this announcement, how do you see? This policy applies to all *transfers* from the moment the policy comes into effect - as it guidelines transfers. It's like putting up a speed limit somewhere - it will impact what you can do with your car at this particular place, but unless you are driving that road, nothing changes for car owners. Same here: unless you intend to short-transfer a last-/8 allocation, nothing changes for you. (Funny that people didn't complain when we changed the IPv6 allocation policy to permit /35 holders to extend their existing allocation to a /32 just by asking for it - *that* was a retroactive change of policy...) 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 pgpyEVi2GEnsp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Proposal Accepted and Implemented (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi. Be ready to IPv4 exhaustion and don't tell that you haven't been warned :) 23 Июл 2015 г. 14:52 пользователь Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net написал: Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to ripe-643, IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region, has been accepted by the RIPE community. This policy change aligns the transfer requirements for all IPv4 allocations. LIRs that receive an IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC or via a transfer cannot subsequently transfer this allocation to another party within 24 months. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-649 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649 This proposal is implemented with immediate effect. Please note that: - All IPv4 allocation transfer requests received by the RIPE NCC after this announcement will be evaluated under the new policy. - The evaluation of transfer requests received before this announcement will be completed under the previous policy. This policy change particularly concerns IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC. If the RIPE NCC made the allocation less than 24 months ago, the allocation cannot be transferred until the defined holding period has passed. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
