From filiz at ripe.net Mon Feb 9 17:34:40 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:34:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Message-ID: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ip-office at kpn.com Tue Feb 10 09:12:06 2009 From: ip-office at kpn.com (IP-Office KPN) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:12:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: All, I might have missed some of the discussion and emails - in that case my sincere apologies -, but I couldn't find the answer in my archive, so here's my question: >To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: >a) not be an LIR What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address space? For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI address space. Is this what is meant here? With kind regards, Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet +31 70 45 13398 ip-office at kpn.com -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:35 PM To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN MailScan, powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ From lear at cisco.com Tue Feb 10 10:20:25 2009 From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:20:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> Isn't space allocated to an LIR PA by definition? Eliot On 2/10/09 9:12 AM, IP-Office KPN wrote: > All, > > I might have missed some of the discussion and emails - in that case my > sincere apologies -, but I couldn't find the answer in my archive, so > here's my question: > > >> To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: >> a) not be an LIR >> > > What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address > space? > For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI > address space. Is this what is meant here? > > > With kind regards, > > > Andries Hettema > IP-Office KPN Internet > +31 70 45 13398 > ip-office at kpn.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:35 PM > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published > (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) > > PDP Number: 2006-01 > Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on > the community feedback. We have published the new version (version > 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published > as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html > > and the draft document at: > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 March 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by > KPN MailScan, > powered by MessageLabs. > For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' > ________________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergey at devnull.ru Tue Feb 10 10:18:56 2009 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:18:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1067596943.20090210101856@devnull.ru> Dear Andries, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 9:12:06 AM, you wrote: >>To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: >>a) not be an LIR IOK> What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address IOK> space? IOK> For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI IOK> address space. Is this what is meant here? The LIR can receive /32 PA allocation at once. In this case, I don't see the reasons why LIRs can request PI blocks, which are usually smaller. -- Sergey From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Feb 10 10:54:48 2009 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:54:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Andries, If you're a LIR, you already can obtain an IPv6 prefix by the regular policy, so you don't have a need for having a PI one. Regards, Jordi > From: IP-Office KPN > Reply-To: > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:12:06 +0100 > To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published > (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) > > All, > > I might have missed some of the discussion and emails - in that case my > sincere apologies -, but I couldn't find the answer in my archive, so > here's my question: > >> To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: >> a) not be an LIR > > What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address > space? > For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI > address space. Is this what is meant here? > > > With kind regards, > > > Andries Hettema > IP-Office KPN Internet > +31 70 45 13398 > ip-office at kpn.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:35 PM > To: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published > (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) > > PDP Number: 2006-01 > Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on > the community feedback. We have published the new version (version > 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published > as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html > > and the draft document at: > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 March 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by > KPN MailScan, > powered by MessageLabs. > For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' > ________________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From info at streamservice.nl Tue Feb 10 10:54:06 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:54:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <000901c98b65$838132d0$8a839870$@nl> Hello Andries, It is just a method to reduce the use of IPv6 PI space with IPv6. If an organization that has IPv6 PI space becomes a LIR they would need to number everything for as far as I can see. KPN could use one of the companies inside the holding to get PI space for as far as I can see, but would KPN need PI space? With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service www.streamservice.nl -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of IP-Office KPN Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 9:12 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) All, I might have missed some of the discussion and emails - in that case my sincere apologies -, but I couldn't find the answer in my archive, so here's my question: >To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must: >a) not be an LIR What is the rationale behind this? That LIRs do not need IPv6 PI address space? For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 PI address space. Is this what is meant here? With kind regards, Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet +31 70 45 13398 ip-office at kpn.com -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:35 PM To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) PDP Number: 2006-01 Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2006-01 has been revised based on the community feedback. We have published the new version (version 5.0) today. The draft document for the proposal has also been published as well as the impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-421-draft2006-01-v5.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN MailScan, powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Feb 10 11:00:10 2009 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:00:10 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1234260010.3803.23.camel@d410-heron> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 09:12 +0100, IP-Office KPN wrote: > For as I read this, a LIR can never requeste for and receive an IPv6 > PI > address space. Is this what is meant here? As I read it, IPv6 PI assignment to an LIR is simply out of scope for a policy proposal named "Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for _End User_ Organisations" (my emphasis). Best regards, Niall O'Reilly From andy at nosignal.org Tue Feb 10 13:29:50 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:29:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> Message-ID: On 10 Feb 2009, at 09:20, Eliot Lear wrote: > Isn't space allocated to an LIR PA by definition? Hi, No; today they might have PA and PI. An organisation may need to run two discrete networks, for some load balancing, resilience, and continuity applications. They may have PA for their usual services, and for making assignments to end users, and PI for their own infrastructure or services which must be announced independently. Examples might be organisations who make assignments to end users, and run anycast dns services. I think it's a mistake to say that an organisation can not have v6 PI, simply because they are an LIR. Their relationship with RIPE does not alter the technical correctness (or otherwise) of their request for address resources. Kind regards, Andy Davidson LONAP Ltd and NetSumo Ltd www.lonap.net www.netsumo.com From gert at space.net Tue Feb 10 13:47:04 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:47:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29:50PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote: > Examples might be organisations who make assignments to end users, and > run anycast dns services. Bad example, as this is what we have the anycast DNS assignment policy for (which is currently being worked on to cover cases missing in the first version). But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever reason, a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed this is not currently covered by 2006-01. What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about is: - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round of discussion/review phase". (I'm a bit sorry to see this come up now, in the review phase, after we had very strong support to go ahead with *what we have* in the previous discussion phase) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From andy at nosignal.org Tue Feb 10 13:56:06 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:56:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> Message-ID: <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> On 10 Feb 2009, at 12:47, Gert Doering wrote: > But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever > reason, > a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed > this > is not currently covered by 2006-01. [...] > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. Thanks Andy From ondrej.sury at nic.cz Tue Feb 10 13:59:55 2009 From: ondrej.sury at nic.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?=) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:59:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> Message-ID: >> - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, >> and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on >> (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting > the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are > not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. +1 O. -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 ----------------------------------------- From info at streamservice.nl Tue Feb 10 14:04:26 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:04:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> Message-ID: <001301c98b80$19db0a70$4d911f50$@nl> Hello Gert, What would be the minimum delay if there is an extra discussion/review phase? If I am correct RIPE will give an extra IPv6 PA assignment on request, could this also be an option? With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service www.streamservice.nl Hosting: nl.php.net grisham.freenode.net and many others -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 13:47 To: Andy Davidson Cc: Eliot Lear; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:29:50PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote: > Examples might be organisations who make assignments to end users, and > run anycast dns services. Bad example, as this is what we have the anycast DNS assignment policy for (which is currently being worked on to cover cases missing in the first version). But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever reason, a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed this is not currently covered by 2006-01. What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about is: - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round of discussion/review phase". (I'm a bit sorry to see this come up now, in the review phase, after we had very strong support to go ahead with *what we have* in the previous discussion phase) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From nick at inex.ie Tue Feb 10 14:03:43 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:03:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <49917B2F.2070005@inex.ie> On 10/02/2009 12:56, Andy Davidson wrote: > There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of > getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are > networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. > > If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the > NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. policy parity with ipv4 assignment should be considered here. There is no prohibition in RIPE441 that I can find which prevents LIRs from getting PI assignments. Maybe someone else can advise me otherwise. However, this policy has been on the table for just a couple of months less than 3 years. Let's go ahead with it, as proposed, and the limitation on LIRs can be removed afterwards. Nick From sander at steffann.nl Tue Feb 10 14:08:45 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <49917C5D.8090500@steffann.nl> Hi Andy, > There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of > getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are > networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. > > If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the > NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. I think this is a good way forward. Thanks, Sander From sergey at devnull.ru Tue Feb 10 14:11:48 2009 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:11:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <1153546347.20090210141148@devnull.ru> Hello, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 1:56:06 PM, you wrote: AD> If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the AD> NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. I support this suggestion. IPv6 PI should be implemented ASAP. -- Sergey From gert at space.net Tue Feb 10 14:16:14 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:16:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <001301c98b80$19db0a70$4d911f50$@nl> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <001301c98b80$19db0a70$4d911f50$@nl> Message-ID: <20090210131614.GD44476@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:04:26PM +0100, Stream Service wrote: > What would be the minimum delay if there is an extra discussion/review > phase? At least 2-3 months - *if* we can reach consensus quickly on how the changed version should look like. > If I am correct RIPE will give an extra IPv6 PA assignment on request, could > this also be an option? I'm not sure if I fully understand this part of the question. If I interpret this as whether "a LIR can have an extra PA blocks just by asking for it (while the first PA block is not full)", the answer is "no". As in IPv4, new PA blocks are only allocated if the existing ones are full (IPv4: 80%, IPv6: HD-ratio of 0.96 achieved). There was a discussion on whether or not multiple independent PA blocks should be allowed for a single LIR, but it never reached "formal proposal" stage. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From marcoh at marcoh.net Tue Feb 10 14:18:35 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:18:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> Message-ID: <89F73A34-ED44-483F-8CE0-E0E3F57FBEB4@marcoh.net> On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind > about > is: > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > of discussion/review phase". Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH From frederic at placenet.org Tue Feb 10 14:18:11 2009 From: frederic at placenet.org (Frederic CELLA) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:18:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <1153546347.20090210141148@devnull.ru> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> <1153546347.20090210141148@devnull.ru> Message-ID: <49917E93.1000907@placenet.org> Sergey Myasoedov a ?crit : > Hello, > > Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 1:56:06 PM, you wrote: > > AD> If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the > AD> NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. > > I support this suggestion. IPv6 PI should be implemented ASAP. > > > -- > Sergey > > > yes ASAP bst regards. Frederic From info at streamservice.nl Tue Feb 10 14:48:56 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:48:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <89F73A34-ED44-483F-8CE0-E0E3F57FBEB4@marcoh.net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <89F73A34-ED44-483F-8CE0-E0E3F57FBEB4@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <001401c98b86$51c17040$f54450c0$@nl> I agree with MarcoH. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Hogewoning Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 14:19 To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind > about > is: > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > of discussion/review phase". Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Tue Feb 10 15:19:01 2009 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:19:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB82C316F@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> I can only agree with this. IPv6 PI is in progress far to long by now, so let's finally get it done. regards, Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Systemtechnik Internet / Internet Engineering Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Marc L?tzenkirchen, Dr. Hai Cheng, Dr. Max Padberg, Peter Schindler ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von > Marco Hogewoning > Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Februar 2009 14:19 > An: Gert Doering > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document > Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End > User Organisations) > > > On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > > > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up > your mind > > about > > is: > > > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one > extra round > > of discussion/review phase". > > > Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any > changes to it > in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. > > Groet, > > MarcoH > > From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 10 15:37:57 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:37:57 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I think it's a mistake to say that an organisation can not > have v6 PI, simply because they are an LIR. Their > relationship with RIPE does not alter the technical > correctness (or otherwise) of their request for address resources. I personally agree with this. However we as an organization would not support delaying this policy any longer. By accepting this policy we fix a major gap in parity with the IPv4 policy, and any fixes can be done later. Even the smallest ISP is not a RIPE LIR, they are an ISP which has a RIPE LIR relationship. So the LIR clause is not only an inappropriate non-technical criteria, it is actually non-functional as well. I would like to see 2006-01 accepted as soon as possible, and a new proposal made to get rid of the LIR clause, and perhaps also address underlying technical issues. For instance, should the clause be changed to say that PI blocks should not be given to networks which have PA blocks announced by the same AS number? In other words, is there an underlying technical criteria related to reducing the number of IPv6 announcements from a single network? --Michael Dillon From Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl Tue Feb 10 15:46:34 2009 From: Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl (Ralph Smit) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:46:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <89F73A34-ED44-483F-8CE0-E0E3F57FBEB4@marcoh.net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <89F73A34-ED44-483F-8CE0-E0E3F57FBEB4@marcoh.net> Message-ID: I also agree with MarcoH Regards, Ralph Smit. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Hogewoning Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 14:19 To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind > about > is: > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > of discussion/review phase". Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH From alexlh at ripe.net Tue Feb 10 17:07:27 2009 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:07:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv4 blocks allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <169ACBFD-99D3-4A07-A435-403A8B9404DE@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address ranges 109/8 and 178/8 from the IANA in January 2009. We will begin allocating from these ranges in the near future. The minimum allocation size from these two /8s has been set at /21. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Please also note that several "pilot" prefixes are being announced from each /8. These prefixes are: 178.0.0.0/16, pingable 178.0.0.1 178.1.0.0/21, pingable 178.1.0.1 178.1.24.0/24, pingable 178.1.24.1 109.0.0.0/16, pingable 109.0.0.1 109.1.0.0/21, pingable 109.1.0.1 109.1.24.0/24, pingable 109.1.24.1 They all originate in AS12654. More information on this "pilot" activity is available in the document "De-Bogonising New Address Blocks", which can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-351.html Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC Policy Implementation Co-ordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Tue Feb 10 19:20:33 2009 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:20:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) Message-ID: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC5BEF04@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> All, I strongly support Marco's position on this. Let's get this policy done asap and deal with changes in a later document. Kind regards, Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net To: Gert Doering Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Sent: Tue Feb 10 13:18:35 2009 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind > about > is: > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > of discussion/review phase". Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. Groet, MarcoH This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slz at baycix.de Tue Feb 10 19:54:13 2009 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:54:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC5BEF04@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> References: <2E61C47A190CA44ABFCF23147E57E4BC5BEF04@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: <4991CD55.8090600@baycix.de> Hi guys, .... i just add myself here at a random point of the thread and do a full quote intentionally to support my point that this new discussion is once again ridiculous (like full quotes :) ) at this point of the PDP, so, once again: I support this, DO implement it, do it NOW. Change the details later if nescessary. (how many times have i said that now for this proposal?) Remco van Mook schrieb: > All, > > I strongly support Marco's position on this. Let's get this policy done > asap and deal with changes in a later document. > > Kind regards, > > Remco > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > To: Gert Doering > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Sent: Tue Feb 10 13:18:35 2009 > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published > (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User > Organisations) > > > On 10 feb 2009, at 13:47, Gert Doering wrote: > > > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind > > about > > is: > > > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > > of discussion/review phase". > > > Let me voice support for 'move on as is' and discuss any changes to it > in a new proposal. This whole PI thing has been on hold for too long. > > Groet, > > MarcoH > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted > with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally > privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you > have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: > Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, > London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. > -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From tomas.hlavacek at elfove.cz Wed Feb 11 01:04:46 2009 From: tomas.hlavacek at elfove.cz (Tomas Hlavacek) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:04:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> References: <20090209163440.7FBC62F593@herring.ripe.net> <499146D9.2000203@cisco.com> <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4992161E.3080001@elfove.cz> Greetings! I support 2006-01 and I would like to see it implemented ASAP. Please go ahead with this version. Tomas Gert Doering wrote: ... > What you ("you" as in "the community") now need to make up your mind about > is: > > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). > > - do you want to adapt 2006-01, which means "at least one extra round > of discussion/review phase". > > (I'm a bit sorry to see this come up now, in the review phase, after we > had very strong support to go ahead with *what we have* in the previous > discussion phase) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- Tom?? Hlav??ek From ip-office at kpn.com Wed Feb 11 09:28:11 2009 From: ip-office at kpn.com (IP-Office KPN) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:28:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 New Draft Document Published (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations) In-Reply-To: References: <20090210124704.GB44476@Space.Net> <446221EC-51E0-46AC-9D4E-F30C1CDB0E16@nosignal.org> Message-ID: All, Thank you for all replies to my question:) We support proposal 2006-01 as is and Andy's proposal to go forward. With kind regards, Andries Hettema IP-Office KPN Internet 070 45 13398 ip-office at kpn.com -----Original Message----- On 10 Feb 2009, at 12:47, Gert Doering wrote: > But I can see your point - there might be cases where, for whatever > reason, > a LIR might want to assign a separate network to itself, and indeed > this > is not currently covered by 2006-01. [...] > - do you want to accept 2006-01 as it is right now, in version 5.0, > and make amendments for the "LIR to itself" special case later on > (to go forward, I hear people are really waiting for it). There are significant advantages to passing "as is" with the aim of getting the policy passed quickly, because I do believe there are networks who are not LIRs waiting for v6 PI to be allowed in Europe. If others agree with my premise that an organisation's status with the NCC should not be a barrier to v6 PI, I will propose the policy to fix. Thanks Andy ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ This inbound message to KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN MailScan, powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit: http://www.kpn.com, keyword 'Mailscan' ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ From filiz at ripe.net Thu Feb 12 15:20:42 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:20:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs) Message-ID: <20090212142042.4E4CE2F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2008-09 ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2008-09, "ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-09.html Given the recent publication of RFC 5396, the proposer and the Address Policy WG Chairs have agreed that there is no need to keep 2008-09 in the RIPE Policy Development Process. RFC 5396 can be found at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc5396.txt Following feedback received in RIPE 57, the Address Policy WG Chairs have also concluded that the current RIPE Policy Document ripe-389, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures", will be updated so that the reference to the previous registration format is deleted from the policy document. We have now published a draft RIPE Policy Document, in which the changes are marked: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft-2008-09.html We encourage you to read this document and, if you have any comments, send them to before 12 March 2009. After this date we will publish the draft document as a RIPE Policy Document. A further announcement will be made shortly regarding the full implementation of the ASPLAIN registration format for 32-bit AS Numbers by the RIPE NCC. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Feb 12 17:29:46 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:29:46 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs) In-Reply-To: <20090212142042.4E4CE2F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090212142042.4E4CE2F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <49944E7A.7060208@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Dear Filiz, WG Members, I don't see a ploblem with the amended draft text. Wilfried. Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-09 > ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal 2008-09, "ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte > ASNs", has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-09.html > > Given the recent publication of RFC 5396, the proposer and the > Address Policy WG Chairs have agreed that there is no need to keep > 2008-09 in the RIPE Policy Development Process. RFC 5396 can > be found at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/rfc/rfc5396.txt > > Following feedback received in RIPE 57, the Address Policy WG Chairs > have also concluded that the current RIPE Policy Document ripe-389, > "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies and Procedures", > will be updated so that the reference to the previous registration > format is deleted from the policy document. > > We have now published a draft RIPE Policy Document, in which the > changes are marked: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-389-draft-2008-09.html > > We encourage you to read this document and, if you have any > comments, send them to before 12 March > 2009. > > After this date we will publish the draft document as a RIPE Policy > Document. > > A further announcement will be made shortly regarding the full > implementation of the ASPLAIN registration format for 32-bit AS > Numbers by the RIPE NCC. > > Regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > From andrea at ripe.net Thu Feb 12 17:07:27 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:07:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that phase one of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", will be implemented on 3 March 2009. This change will require that an End User have a contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC before the End User can receive Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. The full text of policy proposal 2007-01 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Phase one addresses the implementation of the new policy in relation to all new requests for independent numbering resource assignments. Please note that from 3 March 2009, End Users requesting independent numbering resources must sign a contract with a sponsoring LIR or with the RIPE NCC in order to receive those resources. Requests for independent numbering resources that do not demonstrate such a contract will not be processed by the RIPE NCC. Information on the required content of contracts between End Users and sponsoring LIRs is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Phase two of policy proposal 2007-01 will address the contractual relationship between End Users who hold previously assigned independent numbering resources and the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. A plan for implementation of this phase will be presented at the next meeting of the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, which will take place at the RIPE 58 Meeting in Amsterdam from 4-8 May 2009. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC From info at streamservice.nl Thu Feb 12 18:18:55 2009 From: info at streamservice.nl (Stream Service) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:18:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> References: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> Message-ID: <001d01c98d35$fbf2b460$f3d81d20$@nl> Hello, Does this also mean IPv6 PI is possible from 3 March 2009? Because it is possible to request it from that date if I read the e-mail correctly. With kind regards, Mark Scholten Stream Service www.streamservice.nl - Waiting for IPv6 PI -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cima Sent: donderdag 12 februari 2009 17:07 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; ncc-services-wg at ripe.net; ncc-announce at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that phase one of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", will be implemented on 3 March 2009. This change will require that an End User have a contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC before the End User can receive Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. The full text of policy proposal 2007-01 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Phase one addresses the implementation of the new policy in relation to all new requests for independent numbering resource assignments. Please note that from 3 March 2009, End Users requesting independent numbering resources must sign a contract with a sponsoring LIR or with the RIPE NCC in order to receive those resources. Requests for independent numbering resources that do not demonstrate such a contract will not be processed by the RIPE NCC. Information on the required content of contracts between End Users and sponsoring LIRs is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Phase two of policy proposal 2007-01 will address the contractual relationship between End Users who hold previously assigned independent numbering resources and the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. A plan for implementation of this phase will be presented at the next meeting of the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, which will take place at the RIPE 58 Meeting in Amsterdam from 4-8 May 2009. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Fri Feb 13 00:42:28 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:42:28 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <001d01c98d35$fbf2b460$f3d81d20$@nl> References: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> <001d01c98d35$fbf2b460$f3d81d20$@nl> Message-ID: <9A1975AB-5D02-4345-B4E0-1AB290D53059@steffann.nl> Hi Mark, > Does this also mean IPv6 PI is possible from 3 March 2009? Because > it is > possible to request it from that date if I read the e-mail correctly. No, this is only about the contractual relationships. The IPv6 PI policy is 2006-01, which is making a lot of progress and getting a lot of support at the moment. - Sander From gert at space.net Fri Feb 13 01:23:42 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:23:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <001d01c98d35$fbf2b460$f3d81d20$@nl> References: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> <001d01c98d35$fbf2b460$f3d81d20$@nl> Message-ID: <20090213002342.GQ44476@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:18:55PM +0100, Stream Service wrote: > Does this also mean IPv6 PI is possible from 3 March 2009? Because it is > possible to request it from that date if I read the e-mail correctly. It's the contractual requirements side - *if* there will be IPv6 PI (because we can agree on 2006-01), it will follow the same rules as IPv4 PI. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu Feb 12 18:00:12 2009 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs) References: <49944E7A.7060208@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > I don't see a ploblem with the amended draft text. Second. It's a consequence of the IETF change to a single representation. *thumbs up* From ahmedr at qnetstaff.com Mon Feb 16 08:04:45 2009 From: ahmedr at qnetstaff.com (Ahmed Abdulraheem) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:04:45 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-announce] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> References: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hello, I am still not understanding about some terms in the Policy requirements such as: - End User must specify and establish need for a Provider Independent (PI) assignment. - End User must provide up-to-date registration information to the LIR; some or all data will be published in the RIPE Database. - End User may not sub-assign resources to third parties. I need more explanation about this Regards, Eng.Ahmad Abdul Rahim System Administrator S.A Department Tel.+965-808888-380 Qualitynet Co. -----ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net wrote: ----- To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, ncc-services-wg at ripe.net, ncc-announce at ripe.net From: Andrea Cima Sent by: ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net Date: 02/12/2009 07:07PM Subject: [ncc-announce] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that phase one of policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", will be implemented on 3 March 2009. This change will require that an End User have a contractual relationship with a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC before the End User can receive Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. The full text of policy proposal 2007-01 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html Phase one addresses the implementation of the new policy in relation to all new requests for independent numbering resource assignments. Please note that from 3 March 2009, End Users requesting independent numbering resources must sign a contract with a sponsoring LIR or with the RIPE NCC in order to receive those resources. Requests for independent numbering resources that do not demonstrate such a contract will not be processed by the RIPE NCC. Information on the required content of contracts between End Users and sponsoring LIRs is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html Phase two of policy proposal 2007-01 will address the contractual relationship between End Users who hold previously assigned independent numbering resources and the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. A plan for implementation of this phase will be presented at the next meeting of the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, which will take place at the RIPE 58 Meeting in Amsterdam from 4-8 May 2009. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC From andrea at ripe.net Mon Feb 16 14:12:21 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:12:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-announce] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: References: <4994493F.60704@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49996635.2040903@ripe.net> Dear Ahmed, Thank you for your email. The points that you have raised are not the result of this policy change, but are already part of the current policy. Ahmed Abdulraheem wrote: > Hello, > I am still not understanding about some terms in the Policy requirements > such as: > > - End User must specify and establish need for a Provider Independent (PI) > assignment. > > All users must justify their need for the Internet number resources they request. The RIPE NCC's evaluation of this need is based on the RIPE policy document related to the specific kind of number resource in question. Please find the Address Policy and Address Management related documents online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/index.html > - End User must provide up-to-date registration information to the LIR; > some or all data will be published in the RIPE Database. > > Contact information for all assignments and allocations is published in the RIPE Database. The LIR gathers this information from the end-user and enters it into the request form and/or the RIPE Database. > - End User may not sub-assign resources to third parties. > > An assignment is considered to be the final step in the allocation/assignment chain. If an organisation wants to make assignments to its customers, that organisation must obtain a (sub-) allocation. There can be no assignments registered within other assignments, they can only be registered within allocations. Please see further details about this at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-441.html If you have any further questions, please contact me. Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC > I need more explanation about this > > Regards, > > > Eng.Ahmad Abdul Rahim > System Administrator > S.A Department > Tel.+965-808888-380 > Qualitynet Co. > > -----ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net wrote: ----- > > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, ncc-services-wg at ripe.net, > ncc-announce at ripe.net > From: Andrea Cima > Sent by: ncc-announce-admin at ripe.net > Date: 02/12/2009 07:07PM > Subject: [ncc-announce] 2007-01 Implementation: Direct Internet Resource > Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC > > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that phase one of policy proposal 2007-01, > "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC", > will be implemented on 3 March 2009. > > This change will require that an End User have a contractual > relationship with a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC before the End User > can receive Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number, > Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP) > and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. > > The full text of policy proposal 2007-01 can be found at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01.html > > Phase one addresses the implementation of the new policy in relation to > all new requests for independent numbering resource assignments. > > Please note that from 3 March 2009, End Users requesting independent > numbering resources must sign a contract with a sponsoring LIR or with > the RIPE NCC in order to receive those resources. Requests for > independent numbering resources that do not demonstrate such a contract > will not be processed by the RIPE NCC. > > Information on the required content of contracts between End Users and > sponsoring LIRs is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/membership/lir-end-user-requirements.html > > Phase two of policy proposal 2007-01 will address the contractual > relationship between End Users who hold previously assigned independent > numbering resources and the RIPE NCC or a sponsoring LIR. A plan for > implementation of this phase will be presented at the next meeting of > the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, which will take place at the RIPE > 58 Meeting in Amsterdam from 4-8 May 2009. > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC > > > > > From gert at space.net Mon Feb 16 16:35:12 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:35:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Minutes from RIPE 57 (Dubai) Message-ID: <20090216153512.GS44476@Space.Net> Hi APWG, the minutes from RIPE 57 are now online: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r57-minutes.html if you feel there is anything missing or inaccurate, please let us know. Many thanks to the folks at the RIPE NCC for this amazing job! Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From filiz at ripe.net Thu Feb 19 16:12:48 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:12:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) Message-ID: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 19 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From heather.skanks at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 22:26:31 2009 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (heather skanks) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:26:31 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <616812070902191326t58f94d97v19252098e65d73d3@mail.gmail.com> This policy is intended to be a global policy and thus has been submitted in each region. I wrote up my thoughts and concerns and posted to them to the ARIN mailing list - but they are relevant to all regions so I thought I would submit them here to help start a conversation about this policy. I don't really have an opinion as to whether the concept is good/worthwhile yet - but I have a lot of concerns about how this would work, what the repercussions could be and whether it is worth it. As written, I'm currently opposed to this policy. Here's a run down of my questions/concerns. It is not clear whether it is mandatory that RIR's proactively recover space, but it sounds as though it is mandatory that recovered space be turned over to IANA. Is this a conflict? Does this create a dis-incentive to recover space? If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the quarterly interval and return it to IANA? IMO, they shouldn't be forced to return it if they have requests within their region that could be met by reassigning the recovered space. Does this have the potential to break/change rDNS delegations? Geo-location stuff? RPKI? What effect would this have on the RIR's db's? How much work would it be on staff and the db's to break up their aggregates in order to return something? What does this do to aggregation? How will preferences to aggregation be made? It sounds like first come, first serve.. gets the most aggregated prefixes. It sounds as though you can't return space after phase1, is this correct? Intentional? Whatever space starts in the queue by definition could be depleted in 1 year, if each RIR makes a request each 6 months. Is it worth it to extend the "free pool" for one year? Especially if there is no incentive/proactive process to recover space? If RIR's can reassign returned space until the quarterly interval, there may be little if anything to return to IANA. I think this policy doesn't really do anything to extend the free pool or soften the blow of depletion. I imagine there would be the least amount of address space in the queue the first year when it is most needed. If a mechanism to return space after phase 1 existed - the amount of space to delegate could go up - but probably wouldn't for several years, until IPv6 adoption took hold. --Heather On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-01 > Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries > > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 19 March 2009. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From randy at psg.com Thu Feb 19 22:39:46 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:39:46 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: feliz, can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two? randy From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Feb 19 22:48:48 2009 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:48:48 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <616812070902191326t58f94d97v19252098e65d73d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Heather, A good set of questions but I'll just comment on your first one. On 19/02/2009 1:26, "heather skanks" wrote: [...] > It is not clear whether it is mandatory that RIR's proactively recover > space, but it sounds as though it is mandatory that recovered space be > turned over to IANA. Is this a conflict? Does this create a > dis-incentive to recover space? > > If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate > need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the > quarterly interval and return it to IANA? IMO, they shouldn't be > forced to return it if they have requests within their region that > could be met by reassigning the recovered space. I think that you are really asking whether the proposers intend to create a redistributive system. I don't know whether that's the case and the rationale section of the proposal is very brief and doesn't really give any hints. However, the summary section includes the statement "The RIRs may, according to their individual policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space." I don't know if "may" should be defined in its BCP 14 sense but I don't think it would normally be taken to mean that it is a requirement. Regards, Leo Vegoda From remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com Thu Feb 19 23:17:13 2009 From: remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com (R.S. van Mook) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:17:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Randy - I think the simple two-sentence summary would be something like this: The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating IPv4 will become unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new policy that keeps the structure between IANA and RIRs in place and gives IANA something useful to do. That said, I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure if this is what we're looking for. Best, Remco On 2/19/09 10:39 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > feliz, > > can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like > in a simple sentence or two? > > randy > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Feb 20 10:20:16 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:20:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1235121616.7273.3087.camel@shane-macbook-pro> Remco, Surely that can't be the intention, or the policy would say that? It seems to revolve around the RIRs "recovering" IPv4 address space, and then returning that to IANA. But according to the IANA IPv4 page, every RIR has received at least one new /8 within the last 2 years. Since IPv4 usage is increasing in each region, I'm not sure when these IPv4 addresses are expected to appear. -- Shane On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 23:17 +0100, R.S. van Mook wrote: > Hi Randy - > > I think the simple two-sentence summary would be something like this: > > The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating IPv4 will become > unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new policy that keeps the structure > between IANA and RIRs in place and gives IANA something useful to do. > > That said, I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure if this is what > we're looking for. > > Best, > > Remco > > On 2/19/09 10:39 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > > > feliz, > > > > can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like > > in a simple sentence or two? > > > > randy > > > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. > From nigel at titley.com Fri Feb 20 14:42:25 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:42:25 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> Message-ID: <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> Randy Bush wrote: > feliz, > > can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like > in a simple sentence or two? > > randy > > In a nutshell... When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs Nigel From nick at inex.ie Fri Feb 20 17:07:27 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:07:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> Message-ID: <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> On 20/02/2009 13:42, Nigel Titley wrote: > When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets > equitably shared amongst the RIRs Nigel, Can I ask what the purpose of the policy is? Each RIR is going to have sufficient local demand for locally reclaimed ipv4 address blocks that it seems unlikely to me that reassigning all these reclaimed addresses back to IANA is going to have any real effect on availability for end-users. This is particularly the case if there is going to be an address trading market where allocations have a quantifiable monetary value. Nick From nigel at titley.com Fri Feb 20 17:17:16 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:17:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> Message-ID: <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 20/02/2009 13:42, Nigel Titley wrote: >> When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets >> equitably shared amongst the RIRs > > Nigel, > > Can I ask what the purpose of the policy is? Each RIR is going to > have sufficient local demand for locally reclaimed ipv4 address blocks > that it seems unlikely to me that reassigning all these reclaimed > addresses back to IANA is going to have any real effect on > availability for end-users. This is particularly the case if there is > going to be an address trading market where allocations have a > quantifiable monetary value. Personally I agree with you that people are likely to hang on to what Ipv4 space they have until things have moved on so far that this space is useless. However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. Nigel From randy at psg.com Fri Feb 20 21:46:04 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:46:04 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: > However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to > need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally > allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? randy From randy at psg.com Fri Feb 20 21:51:05 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:51:05 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> Message-ID: >> can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like >> in a simple sentence or two? > When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets > equitably shared amongst the RIRs perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need more coffee (05:50 here)? randy From drc at virtualized.org Fri Feb 20 22:57:47 2009 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:57:47 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> Message-ID: Could someone explain what 'equitably' means in this context? Thanks, -drc On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like >>> in a simple sentence or two? >> When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets >> equitably shared amongst the RIRs > > perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need > more coffee (05:50 here)? > > randy > > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 20 00:55:15 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:55:15 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> Message-ID: <499DF162.DECE8C37@ix.netcom.com> David and all, I have the same question, FWIW... David Conrad wrote: > Could someone explain what 'equitably' means in this context? > > Thanks, > -drc > > On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > >>> can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like > >>> in a simple sentence or two? > >> When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets > >> equitably shared amongst the RIRs > > > > perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need > > more coffee (05:50 here)? > > > > randy > > > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From randy at psg.com Sun Feb 22 07:56:32 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:56:32 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: nigel: >> However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to >> need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally >> allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. randy: > so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of > 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? would be nice to get an answer to this one. i guess layer nine folk belive in fantasies such as 'weekends.' i bet they even believe in 'vacations.' randy From andy at nosignal.org Sun Feb 22 10:31:03 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:31:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:17, Nigel Titley wrote: > Personally I agree with you that people are likely to hang on to > what Ipv4 space they have until things have moved on so far that > this space is useless. However, what space is recovered is probably > best shared according to need, rather than just staying with the RIR > where it was originally allocated. This principle is what this > global policy is about. Hi, Nigel Thank you for the clarification. I'm a bit worried that this policy as it stands could lead to address resources flowing from resource starved regions, to regions who are today already resource rich. I can't work out if it's more equitable to let that happen, or more equitable for us to try to encourage address poor regions to retain their resources to cater for internet growth in these regions. I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible under this policy before voicing a formal opinion. Kind regards, Andy Davidson From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Sun Feb 22 02:03:37 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:03:37 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> Andy and all, I share your concern. Further it is likely that IPv4 address hording by the resource rich to black market those addresses to the resource starved will and from rumor I have heard, is already happening. But after years to nearly a decade of mis managment of IP address allocation via skewed and overly expensive fees, it's no wonder to me. Andy Davidson wrote: > On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:17, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > Personally I agree with you that people are likely to hang on to > > what Ipv4 space they have until things have moved on so far that > > this space is useless. However, what space is recovered is probably > > best shared according to need, rather than just staying with the RIR > > where it was originally allocated. This principle is what this > > global policy is about. > > Hi, Nigel > > Thank you for the clarification. > > I'm a bit worried that this policy as it stands could lead to address > resources flowing from resource starved regions, to regions who are > today already resource rich. I can't work out if it's more equitable > to let that happen, or more equitable for us to try to encourage > address poor regions to retain their resources to cater for internet > growth in these regions. > > I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible > under this policy before voicing a formal opinion. > > Kind regards, > Andy Davidson Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From marcoh at marcoh.net Mon Feb 23 12:46:06 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:46:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 22 feb 2009, at 02:03, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Andy and all, > > I share your concern. Further it is likely that IPv4 address > hording by the resource rich to black market those addresses > to the resource starved will and from rumor I have heard, is already > happening. But after years to nearly a decade of mis managment > of IP address allocation via skewed and overly expensive fees, it's > no wonder to me. With the risk of going sligthly off-topic here since address-policy is not about fees, do you care to eloborate on that last comment ? The RIPE general meeting is where the fees are dicussed and set and I can't find your name on the attendees lists for the last few meetings. If you would have paid some attention you would have noticed that the fees since 2005 only went down or have been kept the same. And if you think this is "overly expensive" wait until we ran out and some market wether regulated/grey/black takes shape. Groet, MarcoH From nick at inex.ie Mon Feb 23 13:05:04 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:05:04 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> Jeffrey, On 22/02/2009 01:03, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated? That's three things: 1. web site? 2. who are your stakeholders? 3. where is INEGroup LLA formally registered? thanks Jeffrey, Nick From andy at nosignal.org Mon Feb 23 20:56:43 2009 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:56:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 implementation clarification Message-ID: Hi, A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what is the correct way to request PI? In UK law, a business might not be incorporated, but in such circumstances, the income and actions of the business are treated as the income and actions of the principal person behind the business. In such circumstances does this mean the individual should apply for PI? Previously I'd have advised to use the trading name to apply for PI, but under new rules I am aware that PI holders need to be able to sign contracts... The trading name might not be a legal entity able or willing to sign. They plan to multihome, their need for PI appears justified to me. Andy From gert at space.net Mon Feb 23 21:03:23 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:03:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 implementation clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090223200323.GH44476@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:56:43PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote: > A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business > or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what > is the correct way to request PI? I'd actually bounce that question towards the hostmaster ("resource analyst") department - they should know (or be able to find out). I could tell you something about the legal framework in *Germany*, but that might not be useful at all in UK, so I won't try. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From sergey at devnull.ru Mon Feb 23 21:04:13 2009 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:04:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 implementation clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <619604126.20090223210413@devnull.ru> Hi Andy, you can register a PI space for a person, not an organisation. This person should have a contract with LIR. The policy allows to do that. Monday, February 23, 2009, 8:56:43 PM, you wrote: AD> A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business AD> or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what AD> is the correct way to request PI? AD> In UK law, a business might not be incorporated, but in such AD> circumstances, the income and actions of the business are treated as AD> the income and actions of the principal person behind the business. AD> In such circumstances does this mean the individual should apply for PI? AD> Previously I'd have advised to use the trading name to apply for PI, AD> but under new rules I am aware that PI holders need to be able to sign AD> contracts... The trading name might not be a legal entity able or AD> willing to sign. AD> They plan to multihome, their need for PI appears justified to me. -- Sergey From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Feb 23 21:24:41 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:24:41 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 implementation clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A30609.8030007@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Andy Davidson wrote: > Hi, > > A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business > or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what > is the correct way to request PI? > > In UK law, a business might not be incorporated, My take on that one is that the applicant doesn't even have to be a "business". IP technology is agnostic to particular legal models and shapes - at least it should be. > but in such > circumstances, the income and actions of the business are treated as > the income and actions of the principal person behind the business. In > such circumstances does this mean the individual should apply for PI? In our neck of the wooods anyone is able to sign a contract, even as an individual. I don't see any reason why this should not be possible with the NCC? > Previously I'd have advised to use the trading name to apply for PI, > but under new rules I am aware that PI holders need to be able to sign > contracts... The trading name might not be a legal entity able or > willing to sign. > > They plan to multihome, their need for PI appears justified to me. > > Andy Wilfried From andrea at ripe.net Tue Feb 24 12:35:51 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:35:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 implementation clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A3DB97.3070902@ripe.net> Dear Andy, Andy Davidson wrote: > Hi, > > A customer has indicated to me that they want PI space for a business > or project that is not incorporated. Under the new 2007-01 rules, what > is the correct way to request PI? > > In UK law, a business might not be incorporated, but in such > circumstances, the income and actions of the business are treated as > the income and actions of the principal person behind the business. > In such circumstances does this mean the individual should apply for PI? > > Previously I'd have advised to use the trading name to apply for PI, > but under new rules I am aware that PI holders need to be able to sign > contracts... The trading name might not be a legal entity able or > willing to sign. > > They plan to multihome, their need for PI appears justified to me. > This is correct, the applicant does not have to be an incorporated business. Independent Internet number resources will be assigned as long as the applicant's request is justified according to RIPE policy. RIPE Policies can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/index.html Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC > Andy > From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 24 20:21:03 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:21:03 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20090220110004.31528.29135.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20090220110004.31528.29135.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> A typo? Addresses will be allocated to RIRs "Providing that the RIR satisfies the allocation criteria described section 4.2.2,..." There is no 4.2.2. Does it mean 3.2.2.? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 24 20:29:46 2009 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:29:46 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: 2009-01 New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <20090220110004.31528.29135.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20090220110004.31528.29135.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Some short questions about this policy: 1. What does this policy do that a globalized transfer policy would not do faster, better and with less overhead? 2. Is this policy proposal motivated by the asymmetry in RIR's transfer policies? (e.g., the failure of ARIN to adopt a transfer policy despite North Am. being where most of the unused v4 space is) 3. In regards to Remco's statement: > The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating > IPv4 will become unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new > policy that keeps the structure between IANA and RIRs in place > and gives IANA something useful to do. Why should we care about "keeping the structure between IANA and RIRs in place?" (not a rhetorical question, really want to know) 4. Did anyone answer Heather's excellent question: > If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate > need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the > quarterly interval and return it to IANA? Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org From filiz at ripe.net Wed Feb 25 11:00:07 2009 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:00:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <20090220110004.31528.29135.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D71496197E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7B7913A3-3B21-4E94-95DC-0C609CD14558@ripe.net> Dear Milton, Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it was a typo, the reference should have been to "3.2.2". Now this is corrected. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 24 Feb 2009, at 20:21, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > A typo? > > Addresses will be allocated to RIRs "Providing that the RIR > satisfies the allocation criteria described section 4.2.2,..." > There is no 4.2.2. Does it mean 3.2.2.? > > Milton Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology > ------------------------------ > Internet Governance Project: > http://internetgovernance.org > > From nigel at titley.com Wed Feb 25 11:02:05 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:02:05 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> Randy Bush wrote: >> However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to >> need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally >> allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. > > so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of > 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? We suspect so. Nigel From nigel at titley.com Wed Feb 25 11:08:37 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:08:37 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> Message-ID: <49A518A5.9020608@titley.com> Andy Davidson wrote: > > On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:17, Nigel Titley wrote: > >> Personally I agree with you that people are likely to hang on to what >> Ipv4 space they have until things have moved on so far that this space >> is useless. However, what space is recovered is probably best shared >> according to need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was >> originally allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. > > Hi, Nigel > > Thank you for the clarification. > > I'm a bit worried that this policy as it stands could lead to address > resources flowing from resource starved regions, to regions who are > today already resource rich. I can't work out if it's more equitable to > let that happen, or more equitable for us to try to encourage address > poor regions to retain their resources to cater for internet growth in > these regions. The feeling was, amongst the drafting group, that there is vastly more recoverable address space in the early "resource rich" adopters of IP than the later ones. This policy is intended to redress that balance, ie to ensure that when address space is recovered in the RIPE, ARIN and APNIC regions (to take an example) it can flow into the LACNIC and AFRINIC regions, who having less history have less address space that can be recovered. Hence the "equitable" description earlier. > > I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible > under this policy before voicing a formal opinion. Anyone is welcome to contribute such scenarios. The drafting group does not lay claim to omniscience. Nigel From randy at psg.com Wed Feb 25 14:56:09 2009 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:56:09 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> Message-ID: >>> However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to >>> need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally >>> allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. >> so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of >> 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? > We suspect so. the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space. randy From nigel at titley.com Wed Feb 25 15:43:36 2009 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43:36 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> Message-ID: <49A55918.7090303@titley.com> Randy Bush wrote: > the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild > fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space. > And I shall invest in runways for pigs. Nigel From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Feb 25 17:51:58 2009 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:51:58 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A518A5.9020608@titley.com> Message-ID: On 25/02/2009 2:08, "Nigel Titley" wrote: [...] > This policy is intended to redress that balance, ie > to ensure that when address space is recovered in the RIPE, ARIN and > APNIC regions (to take an example) it can flow into the LACNIC and > AFRINIC regions, who having less history have less address space that > can be recovered. Hence the "equitable" description earlier. It would be nice to add something along these lines to the "rationale" section of the proposal. Regards, Leo From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Wed Feb 25 15:47:25 2009 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:47:25 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A55918.7090303@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> <49A55918.7090303@titley.com> Message-ID: <20090225144725.GA28908@vacation.karoshi.com.> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:43:36PM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > > the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild > > fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space. > > > And I shall invest in runways for pigs. > > Nigel short runways - these pigs have great thrust --bill From drc at virtualized.org Wed Feb 25 18:45:00 2009 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:45:00 -1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) In-Reply-To: <49A518A5.9020608@titley.com> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A518A5.9020608@titley.com> Message-ID: <772D69B7-6076-459A-B0CA-5EA3CD9043D0@virtualized.org> Nigel, On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > This policy is intended to redress that balance, ie to ensure that > when address space is recovered in the RIPE, ARIN and APNIC regions > (to take an example) it can flow into the LACNIC and AFRINIC > regions, who having less history have less address space that can be > recovered. Hence the "equitable" description earlier. My understanding of consumption patterns is that the RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC regions will consume their free pools much more quickly than LACNIC and AfriNIC. Indeed, some projections I've seen have AfriNIC having large blocks of unused address space long past the time when the unallocated pools in the other regions are exhausted. In such a situation, would it be "equitable" for (say) a non-profit, public benefit supplier of Internet connectivity to orphans based in Geneva to be unable to obtain IPv4 address space whereas DeBeers or Shell Nigeria would be able to obtain as much address space as they like? I suspect "equitable" is in the eye of the beholder and it will be important to be very, very explicit as to what particular goals the policy is attempting to reach "equitably". Regards, -drc From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 25 02:53:11 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:53:11 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A5171D.9020209@titley.com> Message-ID: <49A4A487.F8827EFB@ix.netcom.com> Randy and all, Wild fantasy is right! Not going to happen... Randy Bush wrote: > >>> However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to > >>> need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally > >>> allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about. > >> so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of > >> 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? > > We suspect so. > > the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild > fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space. > > randy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From nick at inex.ie Fri Feb 27 00:10:57 2009 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:10:57 +0000 Subject: The Jeff Williams FAQ (was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> Message-ID: <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> On 23/02/2009 12:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point > me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and > also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / > stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also > provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated? Jeffrey, I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to answer these three simple questions. A few moments of effort on your part would set to rest these things. Indeed, many similar queries have been raised by people over the past 12-odd years on a variety of mailing lists, concerning your many varied, and at times rather curious claims. A good summary of these can be found in the Jeffrey Williams FAQ, which was written some ten years ago. Obviously, I'm not endorsing the opinions expressed in these postings: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html Further concerns are expressed in other emails to the same forum, specifically concerning claims you made to have a law degree from SMU Law School in Dallas: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html ... and another interesting incident, concerning a surprisingly rapid change of organisation from "Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC." to "Information Network Eng. Group.", following legal threats from IEG: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html ... and claims to be living in "5 East Kirkwood Blvd., Grapevine, TX 75208", demonstrable using Google Maps to be a non-existent postal address, although near to Idlewild Ct, Southlake, TX. ... and a claim to hosting a large conference of 25k people in Dallas in 1999 is noted here: > http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04047.html with followup: > http://web.archive.org/web/19990823224445/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebunk.html And further general analysis on: > http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04047.html I hope I'm right in assuming that the "Jeff Williams" of this era, email address jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com, and you are one and the same person. Please feel free to correct me on this issue if I'm wrong. Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium. Nick From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Fri Feb 27 00:23:55 2009 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (lists-ripe at c4inet.net) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:23:55 +0000 Subject: The Jeff Williams FAQ (was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20090226232355.GA7998@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:10:57PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium. Why did you, then? How is any of this germane to the purpose of ap-wg? > Nick Sascha > From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 26 03:10:07 2009 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey A. Williams) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:10:07 -0800 Subject: The Jeff Williams FAQ (was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New PolicyProposal) References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> Message-ID: <49A5F9FE.2372A639@ix.netcom.com> Nick and all, I as a rule don't respond to spacious claims posed as questions, as I felt your earlier posts suggested to me. Further, and with all due candor, I stand by everything I say, write or otherwise utter even if others may or may not necessarily agree. I fully recognize that some of the ideas I have had, implemented with assistance at times from my staff or other professionals of various disciplines have been, and perhaps still are viewed as controversial. That assertion however in no way will EVER dissuade me, or my organization from whatever endeavors we or I choose to pursue. I am sorry to a degree, but only to a degree, that you or anyone else is for whatever reason offended, disbelieving, or disgruntled with my or our organization(s) endeavors, such is life as it were... I am still and long standing supporter of the IETF and it's endeavors a few or which I participate to the degree I can or have time to and can offer something of use or value too. This however in no way means that I do now, have in the past, or will in the future agree with the majority or minority on anything as I am a free thinker and intend to remain such all the remaining years of my life. If anyone doesn't like such I can only say: Too Bad! >:) You have a good day/evening Nick. >:) Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 23/02/2009 12:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point > > me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and > > also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / > > stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also > > provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated? > > Jeffrey, > > I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to answer these three simple > questions. A few moments of effort on your part would set to rest these > things. Indeed, many similar queries have been raised by people over the > past 12-odd years on a variety of mailing lists, concerning your many > varied, and at times rather curious claims. > > A good summary of these can be found in the Jeffrey Williams FAQ, which was > written some ten years ago. Obviously, I'm not endorsing the opinions > expressed in these postings: > > http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html > > Further concerns are expressed in other emails to the same forum, > specifically concerning claims you made to have a law degree from SMU Law > School in Dallas: > > http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html > > ... and another interesting incident, concerning a surprisingly rapid > change of organisation from "Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC." to > "Information Network Eng. Group.", following legal threats from IEG: > > http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html > > ... and claims to be living in "5 East Kirkwood Blvd., Grapevine, TX > 75208", demonstrable using Google Maps to be a non-existent postal address, > although near to Idlewild Ct, Southlake, TX. > > ... and a claim to hosting a large conference of 25k people in Dallas in > 1999 is noted here: > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04047.html > > with followup: > > > http://web.archive.org/web/19990823224445/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebunk.html > > And further general analysis on: > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg04047.html > > I hope I'm right in assuming that the "Jeff Williams" of this era, email > address jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com, and you are one and the same person. > Please feel free to correct me on this issue if I'm wrong. > > Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium. > > Nick Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From gert at space.net Fri Feb 27 08:27:17 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:27:17 +0100 Subject: The Jeff Williams FAQ (was Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> References: <20090219151248.44D112F583@herring.ripe.net> <499EB341.7040004@titley.com> <499ED53F.3020107@inex.ie> <499ED78C.6090805@titley.com> <49A0A469.42F38242@ix.netcom.com> <49A290F0.5070509@inex.ie> <49A72181.4020002@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20090227072717.GP44476@Space.Net> Hi Nick, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:10:57PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium. I think we can rest this case now. Readers of this list should now be able to make their minds about Jeff Williams, and whether or not to take his comments seriously. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279