You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
RIPE Meeting |
RIPE 80 |
Working Group |
Address Policy |
Status |
Final |
Chairs: Erik Bais, Gert Doering
Scribe: Agustin Formoso
- Gert Doering
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/21-apwg-steering-slides.pdf
Gert explained how the session would run as a virtual meeting.
Gert noted that the minutes from RIPE 79 had been sent to the mailing list the day before, and they would be declared final in four weeks’ time.
- Gert Doering
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/21-apwg-steering-slides.pdf
Erik Bais was re-selected as co-chair of the working group.
Gert said that eventually he would want to step down as one of the WG’s co-chairs. He suggested they could have a third co-chair or a “trainee chair”. He encouraged anyone who was interested to contact Erik or himself.
- Petrit Hasani, RIPE NCC
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/17-RIPE-80-Current-Policy-Topics.pdf
Peter Hessler, KLEO Connect GmbH, noted that "Reserved Pool Replenishment" should be ARIN-2019-21 (Petrit’s slides had this as ARIN-2019-19). Peter said ARIN-2019-19 related to a different topic and had been abandoned in Janurary.
Jordi Palet Martínez, The IPv6 Company, noted that he was the author of the Policy Compliance Dashboard proposal in AFRINIC. He explained that a similar proposal had reached consensus in LACNIC, and he was in the process of checking if this would also be useful in the RIPE, APNIC and ARIN regions. He said he might send an email to the mailing list about this at some point.
Luna Jernberg, no affiliation, asked why someone would use IPv4+ instead of IPv6, and if this was for older devices.
Gert said his remark on IPv4+ had been intended as a joke. There had recently been a fairly heated discussion on the RIPE members mailing list about a proposal to do IPv4+ instead of IPv6, because the roll-out was taking too long. In the discussion, a lot of people had pointed out that there would be more work needed to deploy IPv4+ than to deploy IPv6.
Peter Koch, DENIC eG, asked what the map of PDP participation by country was supposed to say.
Petrit explained that this was something they had been doing for a few years already and it simply showed where PDP participants were from.
Nurani Nimpuno, no affiliation, asked what the definition of participation was.
Petrit said this was someone who had contributed to one of the policy proposal discussions.
- Nikolas Pediaditis, RIPE NCC
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/20-RS-Feedback_RIPE80_Final.pdf
André Melancia, technical community, asked if people were still creating new LIRs to get more IPv4 allocations.
Nikolas shared some numbers on recent /24 assignments and said this was the result of newly-created LIRs. He couldn’t say whether these companies’ sole purpose was to request IPv4 resources. However, if the question was about speculation, he could tell that it had been decreasing.
Erik agreed on this point.
Carlos Friacas, FCT | FCCN, asked whether “virtual IXPs” could also receive assignments under the current IXP policy, or if IXPs had to be physical.
Nikolas replied that they were able to receive assignments if they had the same requirements as physical IXPs.
Mouhamad Amer Alshishakly, Alshishakly Group, asked if there was a time in which IPv4 would stop working forever.
Nikolas and Erik both agreed that this question got into futurology. Nikolas said this was probably a question for network operators to answer.
Wessel Sandkuijl, Prefix Broker BV, asked whether the process for handing out ASNs should be made more strict – to avoid handing out ASNs that would not be used (and subsequently having to be reclaimed by the RIPE NCC).
Gert said this question should be targeted at the working group rather than the panelists, given that ASN policy was defined by the WG. He invited people to start a discussion on the mailing list if it saw a need to change the current policies. If there was enough traction, they could create a policy proposal according to the PDP.
Nikolas referred back to his slides showing the numbers of “unused” ASNs. There was slightly less than 6,000 ASNs that were not being announced in the routing system. Based on their experience, about half of the LIRs they contacted said they still needed their ASNs – so it may be that around 3,000 of these were not being used.
Jordi noted that he would try again with a policy proposal for ASN and IPv6 transfers in LACNIC.
Erik said they were out of time and asked for the remaining questions in the queue to be channeled through the mailing list.
[End of session].