From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Aug 3 14:35:28 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 31 August 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Mon Aug 6 16:05:15 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:05:15 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Transparency in Address Block Transfers Message-ID: <20120806070515.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.b08c3d7e3b.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> I support Milton Mueller's proposal to publish a record of transfers within the RIPE NCC. This will show RIPE participants the success (or failure) of transfer markets so we will know whether adjustments to the transfers processes need to be made. It will also, once Inter-RIR transfers are in place (Looking for support for Proposal 2012-02), show whether RIPE based constituents are using and needing to transfer IP's from and to other Regions. Sandra Brown IPv4 Market Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:28 +0200 From: "Emilio Madaio" Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 31 August 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 1 ************************************************ From ispyroul at ripe.net Thu Aug 9 10:42:42 2012 From: ispyroul at ripe.net (Ioanna Spyroulia) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Implementation: Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation Message-ID: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We have now completed the implementation of the accepted policy proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for an IPv6 Allocation". RIPE NCC members who would like to extend an IPv6 allocation can submit the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form via the LIR Portal, or email it to. You can find the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-560 You can find the Supporting Notes for the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-561 More information about IPv6 allocations is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-ipv6 -- Kind Regards Ioanna Spyroulia IP Resource Analyst RIPE Network Coordination Centre Phone:+31 20 535 4444 Fax:+31 20 535 4445 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slz at baycix.de Thu Aug 9 12:40:23 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 12:40:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Implementation: Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation In-Reply-To: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> References: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> Message-ID: Hi, Am 09.08.2012 um 10:42 schrieb Ioanna Spyroulia : > > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear colleagues, > > We have now completed the implementation of the accepted policy proposal 2011-04, > "Extension of the Minimum Size for an IPv6 Allocation". > > RIPE NCC members who would like to extend an IPv6 allocation can submit the IPv6 > Additional Allocation Request Form via the LIR Portal, or email it to > > . > > You can find the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-560 > > > You can find the Supporting Notes for the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-561 > > > More information about IPv6 allocations is available at: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-ipv6 > > any specific reason that there seems to be a missing section in ripe-560 which is mentioned in ripe-561 ( The #[REQUIRED INFORMATION]# section) Or am I blind or something? But thanks for implementing this rather quickly ;-) -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From gert at space.net Thu Aug 9 13:45:18 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:45:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Implementation: Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation In-Reply-To: References: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20120809114518.GP38127@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:40:23PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > Am 09.08.2012 um 10:42 schrieb Ioanna Spyroulia : > > > You can find the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-560 [..] > > any specific reason that there seems to be a missing section in ripe-560 which is mentioned in ripe-561 > ( The #[REQUIRED INFORMATION]# section) > > Or am I blind or something? I *was* going to mention that this is one of the shortest request forms I've seen in a while :-) Gert Doering -- user -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? 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 ispyroul at ripe.net Thu Aug 9 16:37:23 2012 From: ispyroul at ripe.net (Ioanna Spyroulia) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:37:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Implementation: Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation In-Reply-To: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> References: <50237802.8090202@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5023CB23.9090403@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, As noted on this mailing list, an error was found in the Supporting Notes for the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form. The text that asked members to confirm their compliance with the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy has now been removed. You can find the updated document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-additional-allocation-support You can find the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-additional-allocation We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this. On 8/9/12 10:42 AM, Ioanna Spyroulia wrote: > > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear colleagues, > > We have now completed the implementation of the accepted policy proposal 2011-04, > "Extension of the Minimum Size for an IPv6 Allocation". > > RIPE NCC members who would like to extend an IPv6 allocation can submit the IPv6 > Additional Allocation Request Form via the LIR Portal, or email it to. > > You can find the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-560 > > You can find the Supporting Notes for the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-561 > > More information about IPv6 allocations is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-ipv6 > > > > > -- > > Kind Regards > > > Ioanna Spyroulia > > IP Resource Analyst > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > > > Phone:+31 20 535 4444 > > Fax:+31 20 535 4445 > -- Kind Regards Ioanna Spyroulia IP Resource Analyst RIPE Network Coordination Centre Phone:+31 20 535 4444 Fax:+31 20 535 4445 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From heather.skanks at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 21:15:19 2012 From: heather.skanks at gmail.com (Heather Schiller) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:15:19 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy/practice on holding back space before reallocation? Message-ID: I have not been able to find this info on RIPE's website. Does anyone know the amount of time RIPE holds back a 'deregistered number resource' before allocating it? I found this document that describes the deregistration process for a resource holder: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-517 In general it gives the resource holder 4 weeks to object and 3 months to remediate. It does not describe how long RIPE will hold back deregistered IP's before allocating them out again. For example, ARIN used to hold back for one year.. they recently announced they were preparing to drop from 6 months hold to 3 months hold - here is the announcement: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2012/20120717.html It's way down 3rd paragraph from the end. "One last change relates to the amount of time that ARIN will hold recovered IPv4 resources prior to reissuance. The hold time for all returned, reclaimed and revoked IPv4 resources will be reduced from six to three months." Does RIPE have a similar practice. Thanks, --Heather From gert at space.net Tue Aug 14 15:59:43 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:59:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE65 - Agenda, first draft Message-ID: <20120814135943.GL38127@Space.Net> Hi APWG folks, RIPE meeting orga, below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will take place in Amsterdam in the following two time slots: Thursday, Sep 27, 09:00 - 10:30 Thursday, Sep 27, 11:00 - 12:30 The exact time lines depend a bit on how much discussion is going on, so we might move items one time slot "up" or "down". If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or of we need to change anything, please let us know. regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 09:00-10:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters 5 min (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Current Policy Topics - Emilio Madaio - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE64 - brief overview over new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Alex le Heux F. Discussion of open policy proposals 2012-02 Policy for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 Address Space 2012-03 Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal 2012-04 (IPv4) PI assignments from the last /8 2012-05 Transparency in Address Block Transfers IPv6 PA/PI unification proposal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thursday, 11:00-12:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Discussion of open policy proposals (continued) H. IPv4 maintenance policy - Rob Blokzijl (bring topic back into people's minds, agree on next steps) Y. Open Policy Hour "The Open Policy Hour (OPH) is a showcase for your policy ideas. If you have a policy proposal you'd like to debut, prior to formally submitting it, here is your opportunity." Z. AOB From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Aug 23 17:42:56 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:42:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 Draft Document and Impact Analysis in the making (PI Assignment from the Last /8) Message-ID: <50364F80.1050806@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As previously announced, the discussion period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has ended. A Draft Policy text and the Impact Analysis were due to move the proposal to Review Phase. While performing the Impact Analysis, RIPE NCC staff have identified a number of additional points to review in light of past discussions relating to IP address management and overall RIPE NCC membership. Therefore, in agreement with the Address Policy Working Group Co-chairs and the author of the proposal, we have decided to invest some more time in the analysis. The RIPE NCC will publish all relevant documentation in the coming weeks, and the proposal will move to the Review Phase prior to the RIPE 65 Meeting. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 Apologies for any inconvenience Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Wed Aug 29 14:34:35 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:34:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> References: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: Dear Address Policy WG, There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the review phase: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, > "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The > Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 31 August 2012. We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to discuss it. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG Co-chair From bnkuerbi at syr.edu Wed Aug 29 18:14:01 2012 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:14:01 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: I believe some comments were previously expressed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-August/007031.html I support those comments. I also agree with the portion of RIPE's impact analysis which proposes to anonymize refused transfer data. The point of having that particular data is to see how much is being refused, rather than to know specifically who was refused. Regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto || http://citizenlab.org Postdoctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Dear Address Policy WG, > > There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the > review phase: > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, > > "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The > > Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > > published. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > > > and the draft document at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft > > > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 31 August 2012. > > We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from > the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you > think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to > discuss it. > > Thank you, > Sander Steffann > APWG Co-chair > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Wed Aug 29 23:53:07 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 23:53:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: Hi, > I believe some comments were previously expressed: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-August/007031.html You are right. Thank you! > I support those comments. I also agree with the portion of RIPE's impact analysis > which proposes to anonymize refused transfer data. The point of having that particular data is to see how much is being refused, rather than to know specifically who was refused. Thanks, Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Aug 31 00:23:46 2012 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:23:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: <001301cd86fe$1f5016d0$5df04470$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Sander, Thanks for the heads-up on the timeline. Although I'm not a fan of transfers (period) or the policies that allow transfers, I do applaud transparency. I also agree that for now anonymous publishing is enough, I would however like to ask the RIPE NCC to maintain the original information as well, to allow specific queries in the future which are not foreseen currently. Think about specific analyses in the future on effectiveness of allocation requests or denied requests. It would be a shame if that data would not be available if needed after the data is published. Regards, Erik Bais From nick at inex.ie Fri Aug 31 13:50:45 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:50:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <20120803123602.2E884200D@mail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: <5040A515.6050701@inex.ie> On 29/08/2012 13:34, Sander Steffann wrote: >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, >> "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The >> Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been >> published. This policy proposes to add the following text to the transfer policy: > The RIPE NCC will publish a list of all allocations transferred under > this section and a list of all requested transfers that were not > approved after their need was evaluated. The list will be updated > monthly and will contain the transferring organization?s name, the block > originally held by the transferor, and, if the transfer was approved, > the organization name(s) to which the block(s) were transferred, each > subdivided prefix (each partial block derived from that original block) > transferred under this policy, and the date each prefix was transferred. This seems very sensible and I support it. Nick