From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Jun 1 11:57:17 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:57:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Rob Blokzijl wrote: Just a couple of comments.... Ref. Section 5, "comprehensive": >From a "consumer's" point of view, the RIPE NCC Address Registry should return a valid answer about the status of *all* addresses in the IPv4 space. The answer will necessarily be different, depending on the status of the address block and the authority regarding the answer. For those addresses, which are authoritatively managed by other RIRs, there should be an indication where to find "better" information. We are already pretty far down that path :-) Ref. Section 5, "correct": I think we shoukd find a better term than "actual use" :-) The registry imho is not in a position to rate or document the use of the address space, just the authorized holdership. This also relates to the Disincentives listed. Ref. Section 6, "Disincentives / cost": Proposal: "The cost should not be excessive|unreasonable in relation to the benefits for the Internet community." My reasoning here is that we cannot compare cost against (perceived) benefit and that the individual perception may be pretty extreme when it comes to payments :-) Thanks to the authors for taking the lead! Wilfried. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Jun 1 17:43:49 2010 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:43:49 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> On Jun 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: [?] > Ref. Section 5, "comprehensive": > > From a "consumer's" point of view, the RIPE NCC Address Registry should > return a valid answer about the status of *all* addresses in the IPv4 space. > > The answer will necessarily be different, depending on the status of the > address block and the authority regarding the answer. > > For those addresses, which are authoritatively managed by other RIRs, there > should be an indication where to find "better" information. We are already > pretty far down that path :-) The 'user friendly' thing to do is probably to go and find them the end answer, rather than referring them to somewhere else to look up the answer. This is probably particularly important when the query is made by a piece of software that is not aware that it needs to follow a referral. Regards, Leo Vegoda From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Tue Jun 1 18:17:44 2010 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:17:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> Message-ID: <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:43:49AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Ref. Section 5, "comprehensive": > > > > From a "consumer's" point of view, the RIPE NCC Address Registry should > > return a valid answer about the status of *all* addresses in the IPv4 space. > > > > The answer will necessarily be different, depending on the status of the > > address block and the authority regarding the answer. > > > > For those addresses, which are authoritatively managed by other RIRs, there > > should be an indication where to find "better" information. We are already > > pretty far down that path :-) > > The 'user friendly' thing to do is probably to go and find them the > end answer, rather than referring them to somewhere else to look up > the answer. This is probably particularly important when the query is > made by a piece of software that is not aware that it needs to follow > a referral. I believe that this is not always the best solution. Although this is generally good idea when user is querying registry using some API with well-defined output, I can imagine that simple redirection of text-based whois output from other registry can confuse the querying software. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From filiz at ripe.net Wed Jun 2 11:04:08 2010 From: filiz at ripe.net (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:04:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) Message-ID: <20100602090409.1523B6A007@postboy.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2009-01 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis for it at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html and the draft document at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/2009-01-draft.html We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2010. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Jun 2 12:05:56 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:56 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> Message-ID: <4C062D04.2050205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:43:49AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: > >>>Ref. Section 5, "comprehensive": >>> >>>From a "consumer's" point of view, the RIPE NCC Address Registry should >>>return a valid answer about the status of *all* addresses in the IPv4 space. >>> >>>The answer will necessarily be different, depending on the status of the >>>address block and the authority regarding the answer. >>> >>>For those addresses, which are authoritatively managed by other RIRs, there >>>should be an indication where to find "better" information. We are already >>>pretty far down that path :-) >> >>The 'user friendly' thing to do is probably to go and find them the >>end answer, rather than referring them to somewhere else to look up >>the answer. This is probably particularly important when the query is >>made by a piece of software that is not aware that it needs to follow >>a referral. > > > I believe that this is not always the best solution. Although this is > generally good idea when user is querying registry using some API with > well-defined output, I can imagine that simple redirection of text-based > whois output from other registry can confuse the querying software. Well, redirection is one possible appraoch, actually an approach I do not really like ;-) Another possibility would be to have the targetted whois server do the legwork on behalf of the user. Then "just" give back the (correct(def.?)) answer. I presume this would require a considerable effort on the side of the RIRs (and NIRs, potentially using a different character set) and a much better understanding ref. the (compatible) format (and the components) of the result. > Piotr $ set (dreaming mode=OFF), Wilfried From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Jun 2 16:07:34 2010 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:07:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580637F5FD@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > > The 'user friendly' thing to do is probably to go and find them the > > end answer, rather than referring them to somewhere else to look up > > the answer. Yes. > I believe that this is not always the best solution. Although this is > generally good idea when user is querying registry using some API with > well-defined output, I can imagine that simple redirection of text- > based > whois output from other registry can confuse the querying software. This is why RIPE and the other 4 RIRs should get together and replace the obsolete and inadequate text whois protocol. ARIN has already moved away from text whois with a RESTful protocol that outputs the whois directory info in an XML format. If all RIRs would support the same protocol, then referral could be done seamlessly. Even if the inquiry comes in on the obsolete text whois protocol, the RIR will be able to decode "foreign" whois lookups the same way as they decode "local" ones. --Michael Dillon From noreply at ripe.net Wed Jun 2 17:01:05 2010 From: noreply at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:01:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010 IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Now Underway Message-ID: <2E928667-2277-42E3-8CB8-EBC154DB061D@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, As announced at RIPE 60 in Prague, GNKS Consult and TNO are working with the RIPE NCC to repeat the 2009 survey on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is now online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The purpose of the survey is to better understand where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. As it is mostly the same as the survey carried out in 2009, comparison of progress will be possible. In addition, RIPE community participation will contribute to a better understanding of the global situation, as APNIC, AfriNIC and LACNIC will also send out the request to participate to their communities. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. The survey will close on 1 July 2010. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to . Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC From shane at time-travellers.org Thu Jun 3 08:19:30 2010 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:19:30 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WHOIS replacement, was RE: Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580637F5FD@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580637F5FD@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <1275545970.12643.207.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Michael, On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:07 +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > I believe that this is not always the best solution. Although this is > > generally good idea when user is querying registry using some API with > > well-defined output, I can imagine that simple redirection of text- > > based > > whois output from other registry can confuse the querying software. > > This is why RIPE and the other 4 RIRs should get together and replace > the obsolete and inadequate text whois protocol. ARIN has already moved > away from text whois with a RESTful protocol that outputs the whois > directory info in an XML format. > > If all RIRs would support the same protocol, then referral could be done > seamlessly. Even if the inquiry comes in on the obsolete text whois > protocol, the RIR will be able to decode "foreign" whois lookups > the same way as they decode "local" ones. This protocol already exists. The RIPE NCC even ran a test server for a while: http://www.ripe.net/db/iris-pilot/ Some of the information links are broken, and the server doesn't appear to be up any more. The best place to look is probably the IETF CRISP working group RFCs: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/crisp/ The "requirements" document gives some useful background: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3707/ Full disclosure: I worked at both ARIN and the RIPE NCC during the times when a WHOIS replacement was envisioned and developed. The effort to implement IRIS was largely unsuccessful, but not because of missing technology IMHO. It was largely because nobody cares. The problems it solves are real, but they are not any organization's primary concerns. For my part, I'd be more than happy to help re-vamp the attempt to replace WHOIS, but I'm not sure it would do much good. -- Shane From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jun 3 19:35:50 2010 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:35:50 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WHOIS replacement, was RE: Registry - not a policy proposal In-Reply-To: <1275545970.12643.207.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <4C04D97D.5040701@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <34E13DEE-346C-4B91-B93D-177F69311DF5@icann.org> <20100601161744.GA30025@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C4974580637F5FD@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <1275545970.12643.207.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > This protocol already exists. Actually, multiple whois replacement protocols exist and more are coming, albeit outside of the IETF context (e.g., multiple incompatible (as I understand it) RESTful Whois implementations). > The best place to look is probably the IETF CRISP working group RFCs: Or Whois++ (RFC 1835) or Rwhois (RFC 2167). And we shouldn't forget (like some people can't forget the taste of Tequila after overindulging) X.500 and LDAP. > The effort to implement IRIS was largely unsuccessful, "largely"? > but not because > of missing technology IMHO. It was largely because nobody cares. The > problems it solves are real, but they are not any organization's primary > concerns. Right. No one knows how to make money by standardizing on how to query and display registration data and the amount of money saved by a standardized system has (to date) been insufficient to drive enough interest to fix the myriad issues with the existing whois system. As a result, folks implement whatever they feel will solve their specific problem rather than looking to solve the more generic problem, with the end result being the need for clients to know who they are querying in order to send the appropriate query and parse the resulting output. Sub-optimal, but not surprising. Regards, -drc [Speaking personally and representing no one but myself. Really.] From cgrundemann at gmail.com Fri Jun 4 16:08:19 2010 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:08:19 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion Message-ID: Hello APWG, I and a group of others have been working on a global policy proposal regarding returning and re-allocating IPv4 addresses to and from the IANA post IPv4 exhaustion. As this is a global proposal, we have decided that the best approach is to float the current draft publicly in all five regions and solicit feedback, before submitting it as an official policy proposal. We hope that this will let us identify and address any problems or gaps ahead of time and thus ease the process. Barring any major issues being raised, we hope to submit the proposal next week so I would love to get your feedback incorporated by Tuesday (8 June) if at all possible. Please feel free to provide comments on or off list. Thanks in advance - have a wonderful weekend! # Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion # Rationale: This policy defines the process for the allocation of IPv4 addresses post "Exhaustion Phase"[1]. In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, the IANA must set up a reclamation pool to hold addresses in and distribute from in compliance with this policy. This policy establishes the process by which IPv4 addresses can be returned to and re-issued from the IANA post Exhaustion Phase. The intent of this policy is as follows: * Includes all post Exhaustion Phase address space returned to the IANA. * Allows allocations by the IANA from the Reclamation Pool once the Exhaustion Phase has been completed. * Defines "need" as the basis for further IPv4 allocations by the IANA. * Does not differentiate any class of IPv4 address space unless defined by RFC 1918. * Encourages the return of IPv4 address space by making this re-allocation process available. * Disallows transfers of addresses sourced from the Reclamation Pool in the absence of an IPV4 Global Transfer Policy to neutralize transfer process inequities across RIR regions. * Applies to legacy IPv4 Address Space initially allocated by the IANA to users including the allocations to RIRs. * Includes any length of fragments currently held by the IANA now or in the future. 1. Reclamation Pool Upon adoption of this IPv4 address policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, the IANA shall establish a Reclamation Pool to be utilized post RIR IPv4 exhaustion as defined in Section 5. As soon as the first RIR exhausts its inventory of IP address space, this Reclamation Pool will be declared active. 2. Returning Address Space to the IANA The IANA will accept into the Reclamation Pool all eligible IPv4 address space that is offerred for return. Eligible address space includes any addresses not previously designated for special use by an IETF published RFC explicitly offerred for return to the IANA by: a) The RIR to which the space is assigned b) The registrant of record where no RIR holds authority 3. Address Allocations from the Reclamation Pool by the IANA Allocations from the Reclamation Pool may begin once the pool is declared active. Aggregates in the Reclamation Pool may be divided on a CIDR boundary to the longest minimum allocation or assignment of any of the RIRs in order to complete these allocations. Addresses that are left over will be held in the Reclamation Pool until additional IP addresses are returned, or a minimum allocation unit is achieved that allows continued allocations from the pool. 4. RIR Eligibility for Receiving Allocations from the Reclamation Pool Upon the exhaustion of an RIR's free space pool, an RIR will become eligible to request address space from the IANA Reclamation Pool when it publicly announces via its respective global announcements email list and by posting a notice on its website that it has exhausted its supply of IPv4 address space. Exhaustion is defined as an inventory of less than the equivalent of a single /8 and the inability to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of the RIR's policy defined minimum allocation unit. Any RIR that is formed after this policy has been adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors is not eligible to utilize this policy to obtain IPv4 address space from the IANA. 5. Reporting Requirements The IANA shall publish on at least a weekly basis a report that is publicly available which at a minimum details all address space that has been received and that has been allocated. The IANA shall publish a Returned Address Space Report which indicates what resources were returned, by whom and when. The IANA shall publish an Allocations Report on at least a weekly basis which at a minimum indicates what IPv4 address space has been allocated, which RIR received the allocation and when. The IANA shall publish a public report confirming RIR eligibility subsequent to Section 4. 6. No Transfer Rights Address space assigned from the Reclamation Pool is not subject to transfer outside of an ICANN Board adopted globally adopted transfer policy. The definition of Global Transfer Policy for the purpose of this policy is a global policy that has been processed and adopted by ICANN in compliance with the MoU [2] and attachments as agreed to in October 2004 between ICANN and the RIRs. 7. Definitions IANA - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or it's successor ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or it's successor RIR - Regional Internet Registry as recognized by ICANN MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the RIR's IPV4 - Internet Protocol Version Four, the target protocol of this Global Policy 8. References 1. http://www.icann.org/en/general/allocation-remaining-ipv4-space.htm Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space, IANA, Retrieved 27 April 2010 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MoU , Retrieved 27 May 2010. ## Thanks again for your time and attention! ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org From danica.hal at googlemail.com Mon Jun 14 08:55:44 2010 From: danica.hal at googlemail.com (danica hal) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:55:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Getting LIR Message-ID: Hello, sorry for the inconvenience if this is the wrong place for this kind of question. In this case please be so kind and point me to the right place. We are thinking about getting a LIR and I need some informations about the requirements we need to fulfil. I know documents about requirements of getting PI and ASN but for getting LIR and tho PA i feel a bit clumsy.. :-) Thank you! best wishes, Danica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcoh at marcoh.net Mon Jun 14 09:42:33 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:42:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Getting LIR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14 jun 2010, at 08:55, danica hal wrote: > Hello, > > sorry for the inconvenience if this is the wrong place for this kind of question. In this case please be so kind and point me to the right place. > > We are thinking about getting a LIR and I need some informations about the requirements we need to fulfil. I know documents about requirements of getting PI and ASN but for getting LIR and tho PA i feel a bit clumsy.. :-) Most of what you need is online at the ripe website: http://www.ripe.net/membership/index.html Should answer all your questions HTH, MarcoH From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Jun 16 11:35:03 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:35:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01 Last Call for Comments (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries) Message-ID: <20100616093504.225D36A016@postboy.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2009-01 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-01.html Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 14 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From president at ukraine.su Wed Jun 16 20:37:28 2010 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:37:28 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8) In-Reply-To: <20100413125530.699846A00C@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100413125530.699846A00C@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C1919E8.9010304@ukraine.su> Hi Ingrid, I think, the policy is fair. But you completely forget the Provider Independent assignments there! So I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there. Ingrid Wijte ???????(??): > PDP Number: 2010-02 > Allocations from the last /8 > > 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/2010-02.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 11 May 2010. > > Regards > > Ingrid Wijte > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From nick at inex.ie Wed Jun 16 21:59:44 2010 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:59:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8) In-Reply-To: <4C1919E8.9010304@ukraine.su> References: <20100413125530.699846A00C@postboy.ripe.net> <4C1919E8.9010304@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <4C192D30.9090109@inex.ie> On 16/06/2010 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote: > I think, the policy is fair. > > But you completely forget the Provider Independent assignments there! So > I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there. This policy is about allocations (i.e. to LIRs), not assignments (i.e. directly to end users). I don't think anyone forgot assignments - they're just outside the scope of the policy. Nick From noreply at ripe.net Thu Jun 17 11:39:45 2010 From: noreply at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:39:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Reminder: Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey References: <4C191AE0.9020406@ripe.net> Message-ID: [Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder to participate in the 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey being conducted by GNKS Consult and TNO, in collaboration with the RIPE NCC. The survey is now available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The survey will close on 1 July 2010. All five Regional Internet Registries have committed to soliciting participation in this survey in order to compile the most complete global IPv6 deployment data possible. The goal of the survey is to gain a better understanding of where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. Any questions concerning the survey itself should be addressed to . Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC From Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de Thu Jun 17 14:06:20 2010 From: Marcus.Gerdon at versatel.de (Marcus.Gerdon) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:06:20 +0200 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8) Message-ID: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8029CC2EE@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Nick, although assignments might be out of scope here, but Max isn't strolling that far taking his thought logically. Is there a limitation on the size of a PI assignment in place at some time in any one of the lately changed policies? Without digging for any actual numbers out of daily business I'd say there's quite a number of assignments exceeding initial alloctions - and easily exceeding the proposed limit of /22 per LIR. Let me walk a bit further along Max' comment. As soon as I got that last /22 allocation which policy keeps me from requesting a /19 PI for our own use? As far as I remember (at least in v4-world) LIRs aren't excluded from PI policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according current practice moving all our dynamic DSL-pools into PI space would be quite valid as each customer only get's a single address with the sole purpose being the connection to our network (mirroring hosting/housing to circuit business). In addition as a LIR I might come to think of issues with equality in business when running into problems after having used up that last /22 and noticing that ISP running their business on PI space are able to further request addtional IP space. regards, Marcus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services 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: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 22:00 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal > (Allocations from the last /8) > > On 16/06/2010 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote: > > I think, the policy is fair. > > > > But you completely forget the Provider Independent > assignments there! So > > I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there. > > This policy is about allocations (i.e. to LIRs), not assignments (i.e. > directly to end users). I don't think anyone forgot > assignments - they're > just outside the scope of the policy. > > Nick > > From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Jun 17 16:50:54 2010 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:50:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) Message-ID: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> PDP Number: 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup 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/2010-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 15 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From nick at inex.ie Thu Jun 17 19:26:49 2010 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:26:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C1A5AD9.2050602@inex.ie> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html agree. please implement. Nick From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Thu Jun 17 19:47:00 2010 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco van Mook) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:47:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) Message-ID: <25B76451F7215744AFD4195362E55A1C04A4B2@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> +1 Remco ----- Original Message ----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Sent: Thu Jun 17 18:26:49 2010 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html agree. please implement. Nick 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty at akamai.com Thu Jun 17 20:29:13 2010 From: marty at akamai.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:29:13 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <25B76451F7215744AFD4195362E55A1C04A4B2@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: Same here, please move forward. Best, -M< On 6/17/10 1:47 PM, "Remco van Mook" wrote: > +1 > > Remco > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Sent: Thu Jun 17 18:26:49 2010 > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule > Ambiguity Cleanup) > > On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html > > agree. please implement. > > Nick > > > > > 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. > Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Thu Jun 17 20:31:22 2010 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:31:22 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <25B76451F7215744AFD4195362E55A1C04A4B2@NLEN1EX1.eu.win.equinix.com> Message-ID: +2 Dave. On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: > +1 > > Remco > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Sent: Thu Jun 17 18:26:49 2010 > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule > Ambiguity Cleanup) > > On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html > > agree. please implement. > > Nick > > > > > 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, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. > Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. > ------------------------------------------------ David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Limited http://www.clara.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcoh at marcoh.net Thu Jun 17 21:09:01 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:09:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> +3 M On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > +2 > > Dave. > > > > On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Remco >> >> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >> >> agree. please implement. >> >> Nick MarcoH From andy at nosignal.org Thu Jun 17 20:37:22 2010 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:37:22 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <7FFAA3D2-992A-4D80-896E-0FDAD163B83F@nosignal.org> On 17 Jun 2010, at 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 15 July 2010. Yep, please proceed ! A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kpn-ip-office at kpn.com Fri Jun 18 07:43:48 2010 From: kpn-ip-office at kpn.com (kpn-ip-office at kpn.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 07:43:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> References: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> +4 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office kpn-ip-office at kpn.com +31 70 45 13398 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Namens Marco Hogewoning Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 21:09 Aan: David Freedman CC: Remco van Mook; nick at inex.ie; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) +3 M On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > +2 > > Dave. > > > > On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Remco >> >> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >> >> agree. please implement. >> >> Nick MarcoH From slz at baycix.de Fri Jun 18 08:07:19 2010 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:07:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C1B0D17.1070405@baycix.de> Hi, Am 17.06.2010 16:50, schrieb Emilio Madaio: > PDP Number: 2010-04 > 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup > > 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/2010-04.html > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 15 July 2010. sounds like that's what we all(?) wanted to be fixed. Please go on, no big change just a clarification. ...and thanks Gert for writing it up formally. -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ===================================================================== From kuenzler at init7.net Fri Jun 18 08:27:28 2010 From: kuenzler at init7.net (Fredy Kuenzler) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:27:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <4C1B0D17.1070405@baycix.de> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> <4C1B0D17.1070405@baycix.de> Message-ID: <4C1B11D0.2010009@init7.net> Am 18.06.2010 08:07, schrieb Sascha Lenz: >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 15 July 2010. > > sounds like that's what we all(?) wanted to be fixed. Please go on, no > big change just a clarification. ...and thanks Gert for writing it up > formally. ACK, please proceed... Fredy K?nzler Init7 / AS13030 From Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no Fri Jun 18 08:58:03 2010 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:58:03 +0200 Subject: SV: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: Agree, go ahead. Ragnar Anfinsen Altibox As Norway -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] P? vegne av Emilio Madaio Sendt: 17. juni 2010 16:51 Til: policy-announce at ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) PDP Number: 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup 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/2010-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 15 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From BSanghani at relianceglobalcom.com Fri Jun 18 09:29:07 2010 From: BSanghani at relianceglobalcom.com (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:29:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> References: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> Message-ID: <891E52B6F6F62E4F9376CAA357C17C1540F54C98@LON-MBX01.RGCOM.COM> Agree, +5 Regards, Bijal Sanghani Reliance Globalcom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office at kpn.com Sent: 18 June 2010 06:44 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) +4 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office kpn-ip-office at kpn.com +31 70 45 13398 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Namens Marco Hogewoning Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 21:09 Aan: David Freedman CC: Remco van Mook; nick at inex.ie; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) +3 M On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > +2 > > Dave. > > > > On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Remco >> >> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >> >> agree. please implement. >> >> Nick MarcoH The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should return it to the sender immediately. Please note that while we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. From thabet at gmail.com Fri Jun 18 09:55:54 2010 From: thabet at gmail.com (Thabet) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:55:54 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <891E52B6F6F62E4F9376CAA357C17C1540F54C98@LON-MBX01.RGCOM.COM> References: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> <891E52B6F6F62E4F9376CAA357C17C1540F54C98@LON-MBX01.RGCOM.COM> Message-ID: <2B1E5067-CC99-4A20-A152-B3AA145CA958@gmail.com> Agree +6 On Jun 18, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Bijal Sanghani wrote: > Agree, +5 > > Regards, > > Bijal Sanghani > Reliance Globalcom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office at kpn.com > Sent: 18 June 2010 06:44 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) > > +4 > > > With kind regards, > > > ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema > KPN IP-Office > kpn-ip-office at kpn.com > +31 70 45 13398 > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Namens Marco Hogewoning > Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 21:09 > Aan: David Freedman > CC: Remco van Mook; nick at inex.ie; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) > > +3 > > M > > On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > >> +2 >> >> Dave. >> >> >> >> On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Remco >>> >>> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >>> >>> agree. please implement. >>> >>> Nick > > MarcoH > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should return it to the sender immediately. Please note that while we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. > From eva at telia.net Fri Jun 18 10:19:25 2010 From: eva at telia.net (Eva) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:19:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) References: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> <891E52B6F6F62E4F9376CAA357C17C1540F54C98@LON-MBX01.RGCOM.COM> Message-ID: <86FC2AB148984D34859BBE109BE7FF03@tcad.telia.se> Agree, +6 Regards /// Eva Registry TeliaNet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bijal Sanghani" To: Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 9:29 AM Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) Agree, +5 Regards, Bijal Sanghani Reliance Globalcom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office at kpn.com Sent: 18 June 2010 06:44 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) +4 With kind regards, ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema KPN IP-Office kpn-ip-office at kpn.com +31 70 45 13398 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Namens Marco Hogewoning Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 21:09 Aan: David Freedman CC: Remco van Mook; nick at inex.ie; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) +3 M On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > +2 > > Dave. > > > > On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Remco >> >> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >> >> agree. please implement. >> >> Nick MarcoH The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should return it to the sender immediately. Please note that while we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. From thk at telenor.net Fri Jun 18 14:22:21 2010 From: thk at telenor.net (Thor-Henrik Kvandahl) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:22:21 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <86FC2AB148984D34859BBE109BE7FF03@tcad.telia.se> References: <9A76A8B9-0F0E-42CC-8D6C-3ABF96C77995@marcoh.net> <81D36F4CA788E041922BF0E4F3C7C93FFC414A5A32@W2055.kpnnl.local> <891E52B6F6F62E4F9376CAA357C17C1540F54C98@LON-MBX01.RGCOM.COM> <86FC2AB148984D34859BBE109BE7FF03@tcad.telia.se> Message-ID: Agree, +7 Regards Thor-Henrik Kvandahl Network Architect Telenor Norway, Snaroyvn. 30, 1331 Fornebu, Norway. Tlf. (+47) 4790 0095 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Eva wrote: > Agree, +6 > > Regards /// Eva > Registry TeliaNet > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bijal Sanghani" > > To: > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 9:29 AM > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule > Ambiguity Cleanup) > > > Agree, +5 > > Regards, > > Bijal Sanghani > Reliance Globalcom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of kpn-ip-office at kpn.com > Sent: 18 June 2010 06:44 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule > Ambiguity Cleanup) > > +4 > > > With kind regards, > > > ir. A.W. (Andries) Hettema > KPN IP-Office > kpn-ip-office at kpn.com > +31 70 45 13398 > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Namens Marco Hogewoning > Verzonden: donderdag 17 juni 2010 21:09 > Aan: David Freedman > CC: Remco van Mook; nick at inex.ie; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule > Ambiguity Cleanup) > > +3 > > M > > On 17 jun 2010, at 20:31, David Freedman wrote: > >> +2 >> >> Dave. >> >> >> >> On 17/06/2010 10:47, "Remco van Mook" wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Remco >>> >>> On 17/06/2010 15:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: >>> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-04.html >>> >>> agree. please implement. >>> >>> Nick > > MarcoH > > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should return it to the sender immediately. Please > note that while we scan all e-mails for viruses we cannot guarantee that any > e-mail is virus-free and accept no liability for any damage caused by any > virus transmitted by this email. > > From Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl Fri Jun 18 15:11:10 2010 From: Ralph.Smit at nxs.nl (Ralph Smit) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:11:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> References: <20100617145055.494446A024@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: Another "I agree" here. Ralph Smit, Nxs Internet. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: donderdag 17 juni 2010 16:51 To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2010-04 New Policy Proposal (80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup) PDP Number: 2010-04 80% Rule Ambiguity Cleanup 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/2010-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 15 July 2010. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From nick at inex.ie Fri Jun 18 16:18:29 2010 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:18:29 +0100 Subject: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8) In-Reply-To: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8029CC2EE@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> References: <227142482560EF458FF1F7E784E26AB8029CC2EE@FLBVEXCH01.versatel.local> Message-ID: <4C1B8035.8090203@inex.ie> On 17/06/2010 13:06, Marcus.Gerdon wrote: > Is there a limitation on the size of a PI assignment in place at some > time in any one of the lately changed policies? I don't think that there's an explicit limit. > As soon as I got that last /22 allocation which policy keeps me from > requesting a /19 PI for our own use? ah, yes, good point. This is certainly somthing that needs to be looked at. Nick From noreply at ripe.net Tue Jun 29 15:26:19 2010 From: noreply at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:26:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Last call to participate: 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Message-ID: <4C29F47B.3010301@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a last-call reminder to participate in the 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, conducted by GNKS Consult and TNO in collaboration with the RIPE NCC. The survey is available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The deadline to complete the survey is this Thursday, 1 July 2010. All five Regional Internet Registries have committed to soliciting participation in this survey in order to compile the most complete global IPv6 deployment data possible. The goal of the survey is to gain a better understanding of where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. Any questions concerning the survey itself should be addressed to . Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC