From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Sat Dec 1 12:03:45 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:03:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <645F7402A8EB4E46995673432E321A7F@MPC> References: <20121126152257.EBC67C3DEB@mailhub.linpro.no> <50B3DEC9.6040406@redpill-linpro.com> <645F7402A8EB4E46995673432E321A7F@MPC> Message-ID: <50B9E411.3000100@redpill-linpro.com> * Mike Burns > Last month I brokered a sale of legacy ARIN space to a customer in the > APNIC region using the Inter-RIR transfer policies in place in both > regions. > As we know, ARIN has the lion's share of IPv4 space, and this proposal > would open the door to this source of address space for buyers in Europe. > For sellers of RIPE space, this proposal provides another market or two > to sell into. > I believe a viable global transfer market in IPv4 addresses will assist > in what appears to be a lengthy transition to IPv6 by making available > underutilized address space and equalizing transition pressure around > the world. > > I support the proposal. Mike, 2012-03 does not open for transfers from the other four regions. It applies exclusively to transfers taking place within the RIPE NCC service region. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Sat Dec 1 12:13:23 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:13:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published (Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal) In-Reply-To: <50B3DEC9.6040406@redpill-linpro.com> References: <20121126152257.EBC67C3DEB@mailhub.linpro.no> <50B3DEC9.6040406@redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <50B9E653.5030903@redpill-linpro.com> > it would appear that the phrase ?Within the RIPE NCC service region,? > is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section > 5.5. I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says ?this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region?. It appears to me that the new paragraph being added (?other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation?), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Sat Dec 1 12:57:07 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:57:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) In-Reply-To: <20121126144127.5793DC3A01@mailhub.linpro.no> References: <20121126144127.5793DC3A01@mailhub.linpro.no> Message-ID: <50B9F093.9040700@redpill-linpro.com> >From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Mon Dec 3 14:47:29 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:47:29 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 New Draft Document Published(Intra-RIR TransferPolicy Proposal) Message-ID: <20121203064729.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.9a3113d239.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> > it would appear that the phrase ?Within the RIPE NCC service region,? > is to be added at the beginning of the second paragraph in section > 5.5. I'm curious, why is this phrase being added? It does not seem to be discussed in the proposal summary or rationale. It also seems redundant, given that section 1.1 Scope in ripe-553 already says ?this document describes the policies for the responsible management of globally unique IPv4 Internet address space in the RIPE NCC service region?. It appears to me that the new paragraph being added (?other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation?), is on it's own sufficient to accomplish 2012-03's stated goal of increasing the transfer-need-period to 24 month. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ I agree with Tore. While in the immediate term, 2012-03 will apply to intra-RIR transfers within the RIPE region, the intent is to extend the needs justification period from 3 months to 24 months. Now that the RIPE NCC is down to the last /8, when an LIR is in need of IPv4 addresses, it is placed in the position of procuring them from another LIR within region. Doing a procurement every 3 months would be onerous, and extension is needed. However, to Tore's point, there is no point in restricting the policy to needs justification. It will be an independent decision to approve the inter-RIR policy 2012-02, but should this happen, the needs justification period should be common for any procurement. I think the intent of the rewording was to emphasize that it is a RIPE NCC Policy, but it could be misconstrued to imply that the policy is for transfers within the RIPE NCC, and not for any transfer to/from the RIPE NCC. My suggestion, since it is part of the RIPE NCC Policy Manual, would be to remove the words, as recommended by Tore. If 2012-02 is approved, it will make wording changes to 5.5 to allow for inter-RIR transfers. 5.5 Transfers of Allocations Any LIR is allowed to re-allocate complete or partial blocks of IPv4 address space that were previously allocated to them by either the RIPE NCC or the IANA. Such address space must not contain any block that is assigned to an End User. Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. An LIR may only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC, following the policies set for receiving further allocations within RIPE region (see the Section 5.3 Additional Allocations of this document). Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Mon Dec 3 15:03:47 2012 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:03:47 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy forInter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) Message-ID: <20121203070347.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.0dc3f6cc5c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> 3. Re: 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:57:07 +0100 From: Tore Anderson Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Message-ID: <50B9F093.9040700 at redpill-linpro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >From the Impact Analysis: > This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance > with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to > ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should not cause an automatic LIR Audit. Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Can someone explain more about what is involved in the audit? I was picturing more of a needs justification process where the applicant would illustrate that current IP's were 80% utilized. Is that the same as an audit? Also, Tore's last point on 2012-03 should be applied to the passing of 2012-02. In the event that 2012-03 is agreed to, and needs justification is extended from 3 months to 24 months, then 5.5 will have new wording to accommodate the change. Further, if 2012-02 is passed to allow for inter-RIR transfers to-from RIR's with like-policies, then Chapter 5.5 ?Transfers of Allocations? of ?IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region?; will require an additional wording change. Specifically, the second paragraph of 5.5 says: "...address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. " and if Inter-RIR transfers are approved this will change to LIR's of another RIR. Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com From alexlh at ripe.net Mon Dec 3 15:53:28 2012 From: alexlh at ripe.net (Alex Le Heux) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:53:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy forInter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) In-Reply-To: <20121203070347.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.0dc3f6cc5c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> References: <20121203070347.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.0dc3f6cc5c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <729509B8-4717-470E-82A2-A56EF6670937@ripe.net> Dear Tore, >> This policy proposal requires the RIPE NCC LIRs to be in compliance >> with the RIPE NCC's policies. The RIPE NCC will conduct an audit to >> ensure that this is the case prior to completing a transfer. > > I think that this is an excessively strict interpretation of the policy, > one which I suspect isn't the intention of the proposer. In my opinion, > an LIR should be assumed to be in compliance with the RIPE NCC's [sic] > policies; the mere act of participating in an inter-RIR transfer should > not cause an automatic LIR Audit. > > Mandatory LIR Audits would only serve to increase the amount of hassle > and bureaucracy involved in completing such transfers, and might well > discourage LIRs from participating in them at all. > > Given that this is the NCC's interpretation of 2012-02, I don't support > the proposal as it is currently worded, and hope it could be modified so > that it will not cause mandatory or automatic LIR Audits. The "audit" that is referred to here is the small audit that we have always done when evaluating an additional allocation request. It is not the full LIR audit that we conduct as part of our Audit Activity, nor is it something new. It mostly concerns cleaning up exsting records such as: - LIR contact details that are out of date - PA approvals that are no longer in use - Direct assignment customers for whom the LIR is no longer the sponsoring LIR - Invalid assignments in the RIPE DB Experience shows that in the vast majority of such evaluations, there are at least a few records and registrations that are out of date and have to be corrected and that this is rarely a lot of work. The RIPE NCC has always considered this to be part of the basic due-dilligence required to keep records correct and up to date. Best regards, Alex Le Heux Policy Implementation and Co-ordination RIPE NCC From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Mon Dec 3 23:59:07 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:59:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document Published (Policy forInter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) (Tore Anderson) In-Reply-To: <729509B8-4717-470E-82A2-A56EF6670937@ripe.net> References: <20121203070347.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.0dc3f6cc5c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> <729509B8-4717-470E-82A2-A56EF6670937@ripe.net> Message-ID: <50BD2EBB.6040405@redpill-linpro.com> * Alex Le Heux > The "audit" that is referred to here is the small audit that we have > always done when evaluating an additional allocation request. It is > not the full LIR audit that we conduct as part of our Audit Activity, > nor is it something new. Alex, Thank you for clarifying this. As long as the auditing activities does not exceed those that would normally take place during an in-region transfer, or before issuing an additional allocation, I have no objections. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ From sander at steffann.nl Mon Dec 10 15:31:00 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:31:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Conclusions after review phase of 2012-05 Message-ID: Hello working group, After careful consideration of everything that was discussed during the last review phase of policy proposal 2012-05 the working group chairs have decided to move 2012-05 to last call. There has been some discussion on whether the discussion on what the RIPE NCC should publish should be done using formal policy and the PDP. Considering the strong discussions on this topic we feel that it is appropriate to set this in policy, so we continue to use the PDP. We hereby ask the PDO (a.k.a. Emilio) to do all the paperwork necessary and move this policy proposal to last call. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Dec 10 16:04:05 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:04:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Last Call for Comments (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-05, "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Wed Dec 12 11:16:45 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:16:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Dec 12 13:02:17 2012 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:02:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I support this proposed policy. Best regards, Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 12-12-12 11:16 , "Emilio Madaio" wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet >Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > 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. From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Wed Dec 12 15:17:09 2012 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:17:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 December 2012 12:02, Remco Van Mook wrote: > > I support this proposed policy. > +1 J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tore at fud.no Wed Dec 12 15:12:39 2012 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:12:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C890D7.7090906@fud.no> * Emilio Madaio > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. Support. -- Tore Anderson From frettled at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 15:36:57 2012 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:36:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <50C890D7.7090906@fud.no> References: <50C890D7.7090906@fud.no> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Emilio Madaio > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > before 9 January 2013. > > Support. > I support the proposal. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Wed Dec 12 15:57:17 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:57:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91CDA14EB@e2010-mbx-c1n2.exchange2010.nl> I support this policy. Kind regards, Erik Bais From job at instituut.net Wed Dec 12 16:37:34 2012 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:37:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this policy. Kind regards, Job On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From slz at baycix.de Wed Dec 12 16:54:48 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:54:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1375E371-E4AF-441A-8E88-BC7A3738D8E3@baycix.de> Hi all, On 12.12.2012 at 11:16 Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. [...] i support the proposal since it was discussed before and makes sense. The impact will be more or less NONE i guess since - AFAIR - temp. assignments aren't used by that many entities anyways... -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From rogerj at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 17:20:05 2012 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_J=F8rgensen?=) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:20:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. Support from here to. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 18:04:58 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:04:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this proposal. That being said: 1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. FOSDEM takes place in February for example, other conferences can be "impacted" in a similar way. 2) Yet again, I had to diff the text as there's no easily available diff. I will take this up within ncc-services-wg though as that's the best place afaics. 3) It would be appreciated if the -announce list could be moderated or BCC'ed in the initial email, or the reply-to mangled appropriately, as people hitting reply-all is an all-too-common and easily avoided annoyance. Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mps31.ripe at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 19:01:03 2012 From: mps31.ripe at gmail.com (Mike Simkins) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:01:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9346EB3F-8E41-400A-82A7-CE41156F0CB3@gmail.com> I support this proposal On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From david at sargasso.net Wed Dec 12 19:30:49 2012 From: david at sargasso.net (David Croft) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:30:49 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12 December 2012 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 I support this proposal. -- David Croft IT - Network Engineering Sargasso Networks http://www.sargasso.net/ For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694 From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Wed Dec 12 21:24:13 2012 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:24:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13624732-13C9-4784-97B2-E428F647FC31@uk.clara.net> Support D. On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:17, "Emilio Madaio" wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From info at leadertelecom.ru Thu Dec 13 09:02:32 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:02:32 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012121201001466] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Inter [...] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355385751.776767.026282861.265629.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> I support. -- Alexey Ivanov 12.12.2012 14:19 - Emilio Madaio ???????(?): Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: ????[1]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frapzzt at ccc.de Thu Dec 13 13:18:41 2012 From: frapzzt at ccc.de (Kay Rechthien) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:18:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C9C7A1.3060100@ccc.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 i support this policy Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlDJx6EACgkQ39rh4kgD6O94WwCfd/gnhcWoxiccLPS0vw2n1tXW 9KcAn2CQCuzNA0MJCHn8jNwXqvDxZkBf =/AKV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From will at harg.net Thu Dec 13 13:31:09 2012 From: will at harg.net (Will Hargrave) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:31:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <203E96C6-F3C9-4D8C-8F92-C8438EF4960B@harg.net> On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. Strongly support. We are in the network-build phase for 29th Chaos Communication Congress right now, and we will get the number resources on 20th or 21st December - 22/23rd is a weekend and I need hardly tell you what happens 24th-26th December. I am hoping we can get filters updated in time. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444 From db at rrbone.net Thu Dec 13 13:47:48 2012 From: db at rrbone.net (Dominik Bay) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:47:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C9CE74.9050103@rrbone.net> On 12/12/2012 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. I support the proposed change for ripe-526. -- Dominik Bay de.rrbone From arien.vijn at ams-ix.net Thu Dec 13 15:10:01 2012 From: arien.vijn at ams-ix.net (Arien Vijn) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:10:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C51F06-F467-4F40-90A7-3DBF5B66B421@ams-ix.net> Strongly support. -- Arien On Dec 12, 2012(50), at 11:16 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From gert at space.net Thu Dec 13 15:52:58 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:52:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 (not 2010-06) New Draft and Impact Analysis Document Published (Revert 'Run Out Fairly') In-Reply-To: <1351607616.689@mobil.space.net> References: <1351607616.689@mobil.space.net> Message-ID: <20121213145258.GP40732@Space.Net> Hi, the review phase of this proposal is now over. The support from the community was strong and clear, so chairs and proposer have decided to move to Last Call -> Emilio will send the formal announcement tomorrow. (For the sake of the list archives: there was a mistake in the Subject: line of the announcement - it's 2012-06, not 2010-06, of course. The links given in the announcement mail are correct, and from the feedback given, I'm convinced everybody understood which proposal he or she was commenting on - so I don't think any harm was done by the typo, and we can go ahead) Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 03:28:52PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The draft document for the version 2.0 of the policy proposal > 2010-06,"Revert 'Run Out Fairly'" has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > The changes in the version 2.0 are in the Title, Summary and > Rationale. They are purely editorial and reflect that the depletion is > no longer a future event. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 27 November 2012. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 lists-ripe at c4inet.net Thu Dec 13 17:30:01 2012 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:30:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121213163001.GA72655@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:16:45AM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 I support this proposal rgds, Sascha From emadaio at ripe.net Fri Dec 14 14:29:45 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:29:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 Last Call for Comments (Revert "Run Out Fairly") Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2012-06 is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com Fri Dec 14 18:58:01 2012 From: Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com (Christoph Neukirch) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:58:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I support this policy proposal. kind regards -- Christoph Am 12.12.12 11:16 schrieb "Emilio Madaio" unter : > >Dear Colleagues, > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet >Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > From maildanrl at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 22:38:15 2012 From: maildanrl at gmail.com (Dan Luedtke) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:38:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I strongly support this proposal! We had this problem more than once, and this is a good solution. > 1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. +1 clearer statement Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de From nick at inex.ie Fri Dec 14 23:39:54 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:39:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> On 14/12/2012 21:38, Dan Luedtke wrote: > I strongly support this proposal! > We had this problem more than once, and this is a good solution. > >> 1) A month can be anything between 28 and 31 days so I would have >> preferred a clearer statement. But this a problem in general and I am >> certain RIPE will follow this in a pragmatic way. > +1 clearer statement Thanks for the comment (and for supporting the proposal). From what I understand, the RIPE NCC has a procedure of defining a "month" calendar months unless otherwise specified. Nick From nick at inex.ie Sat Dec 15 00:20:51 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:20:51 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> Message-ID: <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> On 14/12/2012 22:39, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Thanks for the comment (and for supporting the proposal). From what I > understand, the RIPE NCC has a procedure of defining a "month" calendar > months unless otherwise specified. It turns out that writing coherent english late on a friday evening is more than I'm capable of. Let's try again. >From what I understand, the RIPE NCC interprets "month" as meaning "calendar month" in RIPE policy documents - unless otherwise specified. There. That makes a little more sense, I think. Nick From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:36:27 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:36:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > >From what I understand, the RIPE NCC interprets "month" as meaning > "calendar month" in RIPE policy documents - unless otherwise specified. > Which would be exactly the interpretation that made me comment on the need of a clearer policy in the first place. Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maildanrl at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 13:06:27 2012 From: maildanrl at gmail.com (Dan Luedtke) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:06:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> Message-ID: I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. Can't we just say n days instead of month? With n being 30* days? Regards Dan * Open to discussion, but I think 30 days is a reasonable time, as long as there is more space than events taking place. -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de From gert at space.net Sat Dec 15 13:13:56 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:13:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote: > I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. > > Can't we just say n days instead of month? > With n being 30* days? So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to paint a bikeshed instead? I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than 7 days (what we have now). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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 nick at inex.ie Sat Dec 15 13:28:36 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:28:36 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> Message-ID: <50CC6CF4.8020404@inex.ie> On 15/12/2012 12:06, Dan Luedtke wrote: > I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. > > Can't we just say n days instead of month? > With n being 30* days? Dan, Richard, In fact, the statement is clear and unambiguous: it means one calendar month. The term "month" is used widely in other RIPE docs docs, which is why it's used here. Nick From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:35:02 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:35:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <50CC6CF4.8020404@inex.ie> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> <50CC6CF4.8020404@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: In fact, the statement is clear and unambiguous: it means one calendar > month. The term "month" is used widely in other RIPE docs docs, which is > why it's used here. > It's as clear as our calendar is "clear", but as I stated initially, this is a problem in general. It will not, and can not, be solved in the context of this PDP. I merely pointed out that I would have preferred a different wording/time frame. Again, I support this proposal and I do _not_ want to hinder its speedy adoption in any way. That's why I put it below the actual gist, i.e. "support". If anything, I would be _strongly_ in favour of easing 29c3's pain and handing them their address space first thing Monday morning. Especially since the support for this proposal is unanimous as of right now with 19 of 19 replies expressing support. Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Sat Dec 15 20:21:18 2012 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:21:18 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> Message-ID: <50CCCDAE.20607@umn.edu> On 12/15/12 06:13 , Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote: >> I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear. >> >> Can't we just say n days instead of month? >> With n being 30* days? > > So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to > paint a bikeshed instead? > > I think "one month" is perfectly fine. In practice, it would not make > a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would > be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than > 7 days (what we have now). > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair I have to agree with Gert this is perfectly clear. It simply means if you get the assignment on the 5th day of the month, have to return it on the 5th day of the month plus the duration of the event. You may reasonably ask if that is fair, that some get it only 28, 29 or 30 extra days while others get 31 extra days, it may be arbitrary, but it is not ambiguous or unclear. I also agree that this is very reasonable for the vast majority of events lasting a week to 10 days or so. However, there are events that last longer or are of a size, complexity and/or stature that even a month could be insufficient setup and testing time. Such events are much less frequent and fewer in number, but their importance probably justifies more time, the Olympics, fairs and other provincial, national, or world expositions are a few examples. If we use the London 2012 Olympics as an extreme example, the events were scheduled from July 27th to August 12th or 17 days, and would seem to be allowed 47 days under the policy. However, other preparations for the Olympics were years in the making, construction of venues began years in advance. Even a month simply would be insufficient time for the kind of testing an event of such size, complexity, and stature requires. Something like 9 million tickets were available for the events. While this is one of the most extreme case, its clear there are events that justify more than a month for set up and testing. Maybe attendance in the range of 50 or 100 thousand could be used as a threshold between these larger scale event and more typical events or conferences that this policy change is intended to cover. Could I also make a suggestion, that you allow for reservations on temporary resources to be made up to one year in advance. This would allow event coordinators to know if temporary resources will or will not be available way before the period that they are allowed to actually use the resources. The intent isn't the they get the resources a year a head of time or that they even know which resources they will have, but that they know they will be available when they are entitled to use them. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From nick at inex.ie Sat Dec 15 23:06:08 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:06:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <50CCCDAE.20607@umn.edu> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> <50CCCDAE.20607@umn.edu> Message-ID: <50CCF450.1000103@inex.ie> Hi Dave, thanks for your comments. On 15/12/2012 19:21, David Farmer wrote: > If we use the London 2012 Olympics as an extreme example, the events were > scheduled from July 27th to August 12th or 17 days, and would seem to be > allowed 47 days under the policy. The official 2012 olympics budget was around ?9.3 billion (?11.5b, $14.5b). I'm sure with that sort of budget, it would be possible to procure any quantity of addresses :-) > month for set up and testing. Maybe attendance in the range of 50 or 100 > thousand could be used as a threshold between these larger scale event and > more typical events or conferences that this policy change is intended to > cover. similarly, any massive-scale event like this will have a massive budget. This policy proposal isn't really aimed at that. It's aimed at solving a class of problems including smaller scale events, research and general temporary projects. It cannot and should not attempt to satisfy all requirements for temporary resource assignments for all time. "One size never fits all". > Could I also make a suggestion, that you allow for reservations on > temporary resources to be made up to one year in advance. In fact we discussed this at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam: https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/steno/18/ Check out the transcript from about 1/2 way down the page. I think there are problems associated with a booking system model. My preference at this stage is to keep the policy and the implementation very simple; if it turns out that this doesn't work for people, we can revisit the issue in future. The purpose of this particular policy tweak is to fix a timing issue which makes the current temporary assignment policy difficult to implement in real life. Nick From nick at inex.ie Sat Dec 15 23:14:59 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:14:59 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> <50CC6CF4.8020404@inex.ie> Message-ID: <50CCF663.8000709@inex.ie> On 15/12/2012 17:35, Richard Hartmann wrote: > If anything, I would be _strongly_ in favour of easing 29c3's pain and > handing them their address space first thing Monday morning. Especially > since the support for this proposal is unanimous as of right now with 19 of > 19 replies expressing support. Hi Richi, this is possibly a matter for the chairs to comment on, but my understanding is that there is no facility for the policy development process to do this, regardless of the general level of support for the policy change. The time-scales are outlined here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/policy-development-process-info-pdf The initial discussion phase began on 2012-12-04, which means that the soonest that this proposal could become actual policy would be around the end of June 2013. Nick From maildanrl at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 13:11:04 2012 From: maildanrl at gmail.com (Dan Luedtke) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:11:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> References: <50CBAABA.3080203@inex.ie> <50CBB453.7050400@inex.ie> <20121215121356.GH40732@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> Can't we just say n days instead of month? >> With n being 30* days? > > So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to > paint a bikeshed instead? I would be more than happy if there is any way to speed up the PDP on this proposal. I just had to admin that I see Richard's point. This wasn't meant to be against the proposal, which, as stated earlier, I still support. Regards Dan -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Mon Dec 17 06:37:49 2012 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:37:49 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CEAFAD.7040806@boeddinghaus.de> I support this policy. Wilhelm Am 12.12.2012 11:16, schrieb Emilio Madaio: > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no Mon Dec 17 14:42:46 2012 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:42:46 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I support this policy. /Ragnar On 12.12.12 11:16, "Emilio Madaio" wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet >Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > > From js at dacor.de Tue Dec 18 11:25:50 2012 From: js at dacor.de (Julian Seifert) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:25:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DE1CC0C755@exchange.suecdacor.local> I also support the proposed policy kind regards, Julian Seifert ________________________________________ Von: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net [policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Emilio Madaio [emadaio at ripe.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 11:16 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [policy-announce] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Dec 19 10:03:31 2012 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:03:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EDDB493-310A-4740-B99E-5A2A91C5764B@kurtis.pp.se> Support! On 12 dec 2012, at 11:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Best regards, - kurtis - From nigel at titley.com Wed Dec 19 19:14:47 2012 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:14:47 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50D20417.7000701@titley.com> Go, go, go! Nigel On 12/12/2012 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From Thomas.Jessen at kpn.de Wed Dec 19 12:36:17 2012 From: Thomas.Jessen at kpn.de (Jessen, Thomas) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:36:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <203E96C6-F3C9-4D8C-8F92-C8438EF4960B@harg.net> References: <203E96C6-F3C9-4D8C-8F92-C8438EF4960B@harg.net> Message-ID: <50F095BE7186F0449741C9A8419722CEDADD55@UNCLE.kpn.DE> I strongly support this, because I'm one of the guys who has to update the filter for the AS286 upstream of 29C3 during my Christmas vacation. Thomas Jessen Operations Germany KPN International -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Will Hargrave Sent: 13 December 2012 13:31 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) On 12 Dec 2012, at 10:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. Strongly support. We are in the network-build phase for 29th Chaos Communication Congress right now, and we will get the number resources on 20th or 21st December - 22/23rd is a weekend and I need hardly tell you what happens 24th-26th December. I am hoping we can get filters updated in time. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444 From f.bauhaus at portrix-systems.de Thu Dec 20 11:01:39 2012 From: f.bauhaus at portrix-systems.de (Florian Bauhaus) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:01:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50D2E203.3090406@portrix-systems.de> I support the proposed policy. Best regards, Florian On 12/12/12 11:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From davidm at futureinquestion.net Sun Dec 23 23:00:05 2012 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:00:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DE1CC0C755@exchange.suecdacor.local> References: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DE1CC0C755@exchange.suecdacor.local> Message-ID: <50D77EE5.3030709@futureinquestion.net> Dear address-policy-wg, I would like to express my support for this proposal. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet > Number Assignment Policies", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > From andy at nosignal.org Mon Dec 24 12:43:36 2012 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:43:36 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 12/12/2012 10:16, "Emilio Madaio" wrote: >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 9 January 2013. I support this policy and encourage you to publish the new version as quickly as possible ! Andy From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Dec 31 11:12:50 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:12:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 11:22:43 2012 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:22:43 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Support. Anything else would be unfair and relatively easy to work around. -- Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Mon Dec 31 11:24:26 2012 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:24:26 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) References: Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A14040687E847@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> I support this proposal. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: 31 December 2012 10:13 To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6/32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated. From erik at bais.name Mon Dec 31 11:36:02 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:36:02 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C09403FE8@e2010-mbx-c1n2.exchange2010.nl> Hi, I support the policy proposal. And to all on the list, have a great 2013 !! Happy New Year. Regards, Erik Bais -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Emilio Madaio Sent: maandag 31 december 2012 11:13 To: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From js at dacor.de Mon Dec 31 11:47:16 2012 From: js at dacor.de (Julian Seifert) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DE1CC378D3@exchange.suecdacor.local> Hi, Support. Kind regards, Julian -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Emilio Madaio Gesendet: Montag, 31. Dezember 2012 11:13 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [policy-announce] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Mon Dec 31 11:52:44 2012 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:52:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: support. dave. On 31/12/2012 10:12, "Emilio Madaio" wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, > > >A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation >and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > >You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > >We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 January 2013. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Mon Dec 31 11:56:15 2012 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:56:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Support J On 31 December 2012 10:12, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- > > James Blessing > 07989 039 476 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Dec 31 12:16:55 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:16:55 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012123101000341] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs [...] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1356952614.522181.186898644.269717.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> I support. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom 31.12.2012 14:17 - Emilio Madaio ???????(?): Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: ????[1]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 January 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hamed at skydsl.ir Mon Dec 31 14:07:05 2012 From: hamed at skydsl.ir (Hamed Shafaghi) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:37:05 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Support. -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl? Telecom I hamed at skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mps31.ripe at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 20:51:44 2012 From: mps31.ripe at gmail.com (Mike Simkins) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:51:44 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Support On 31 Dec 2012, at 10:12, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From sp at iphh.net Mon Dec 31 20:56:36 2012 From: sp at iphh.net (Sascha Pollok) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:56:36 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also support this proposal. It does not make sense otherwise. Safe migration everyone! Sascha Mike Simkins schrieb: >Support > > >On 31 Dec 2012, at 10:12, Emilio Madaio wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation >> and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 28 January 2013. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slz at baycix.de Mon Dec 31 21:17:31 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:17:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, > > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > well, I guess that's how it should have been from the beginning. I do support this small change. I don't think it makes a real difference anyways. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From matoa at vayu.net Mon Dec 31 15:08:51 2012 From: matoa at vayu.net (Mathieu Paonessa) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:08:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-10 New Policy Proposal (Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E19C73.8070709@vayu.net> Dear All, I also support this. On 12/31/12 11:12 AM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-552, "IPv6 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy", is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 January 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > >