From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Jan 2 15:10:46 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:10:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to before 30 January 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From jan at go6.si Mon Jan 2 17:31:10 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:31:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <1325513477_17@poirot> References: <1325513477_17@poirot> Message-ID: <4F01DBCE.5060208@go6.si> On 1/2/12 3:10 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded Hi, Emilio, thnx for your efforts and all the help with this proposal. Just to add my .2 cents - we considered Remco's and James's suggestions, first one to give out /32 by default and give out more only if LIR asks for it (Remco) and we re-added section 5.7 with clarification, that every holder of legacy /32 can ask for extension of allocation. This is what we heard from you - community - in last few months of discussion. Hope that we made this proposal more acceptable for everyone. Thnx for all your input, Jan Zorz From slz at baycix.de Tue Jan 3 13:10:56 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:10:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120102140238.7A7A22A017E@mx00.baycix.de> References: <20120102140238.7A7A22A017E@mx00.baycix.de> Message-ID: Hi, > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-04, "Extension of the Minimum > Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation", has been revised based on the > community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published > the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion > Phase is set for the proposal. > > Highlights of the changes in version 2.0 are: > > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to before 30 January 2012. > looks basically fine to me - the new version doesn't change anything i liked about the initial one. Although maybe.. "Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary." ... is a little vague for people who haven't followed the discussion here ("why no /29 per default in the first place?"). I don't see a general problem with that wording and have no better idea, just saying that some might be confused about what's the point here when reading the updated policy later. Or maybe it's just me _because_ i followed the discussion :-) -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From nihb at wheel.dk Wed Jan 4 16:10:17 2012 From: nihb at wheel.dk (Nina Hjorth Bargisen) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:10:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <30729635-B72B-4690-A588-99FF7CAA8EDF@steffann.nl> References: <20111212121112.GT72014@Space.Net> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D51DE@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> <30729635-B72B-4690-A588-99FF7CAA8EDF@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20120104151016.GA87024@freesbee.wheel.dk> Hi The two weeks have passed, but if it is still open I would like to add my vote to the statement that we have a rough consensus. What and more importantly for my non-mulithoming, IPv4 PI space holding and IPv6 PI space wishing customers, when is the next step? Kind Regards Nina Bargisen , TDC On 16.12.2011 12:45:08 +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi guys, > > >> Alright I'll bite. I don't think "rough consensus" has been achieved in this case and I think we can do the community a huge favor if the proposal is taken back to the drawing board. As said before, I'm sure that once we agree on what problem > >> we're going to fix, it will be a lot easier to get a policy text in place that will meet consensus. > > > > The problem with the policy text is that the only textual change in the policy is: the removal of the multi-homed requirement for PI v6. The intention of the policy was (/ is) to bring the requirements for PI v4 and v6 more in line, without changing anything else that you still require or are not allowed to do when you request PI for v6. > > We are drifting off topic here. Please don't start discussing the *content* of the proposal. We finished the PDP phases where that was appropriate. At this point in the process we (as chairs) are only concerned if the outcome of those discussions, although not unanimous, can be called consensus. > > Thanks, > Sander > From nick at inex.ie Wed Jan 4 20:01:09 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:01:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote: > - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded > - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded two issues here: 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006577.html specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for traditional ipv6 assignments? Nick From jan at go6.si Thu Jan 5 00:58:05 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:58:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> On 1/4/12 8:01 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 02/01/2012 14:10, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> - The proposed new section 5.1.2 was reworded >> - Section 5.7 was not removed but it was reworded > > two issues here: > > 1. I don't agree with this revised version for the reasons outlined in: > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2011-November/006577.html > > specifically, there is still no justification required to move from /32 to /29. Nick, hi. Yes, as you said. We have been through this discussion and there is no point in re-doing it again. Your suggestion is just inserting the pointless obstacle, making LIRs claim they will do 6rd even if they do not intend to do so - to get /29. We can go around in circles, but I'm not sure we need this :) We thought to insert partially your idea with suggestion, that LIR should clarify just for documentation purposes, why they need more than /29, but at the end decided, that this is not adding anything, just making the policy longer. > > 2. if the plan is to use the entire /29 for the purposes of 6rd (or other > transition tech) - so that you can assign up to a /62 for each 6rd > end-user, then what address space does the LIR use for the rest of its > allocation requirements? I.e. will another allocation will be required for > traditional ipv6 assignments? 30 + 32 = 62 :) Cheers, Jan From jan at go6.si Thu Jan 5 01:00:40 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 01:00:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> Message-ID: <4F04E828.5020306@go6.si> On 1/5/12 12:58 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > We thought to insert partially your idea with suggestion, that LIR > should clarify just for documentation purposes, why they need more than > /29, but at the end decided, that this is not adding anything, just > making the policy longer. Sorry, typo, it should say "why they need more than /32" Cheers, Jan From gert at space.net Thu Jan 5 13:57:56 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:57:56 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:12:34PM +0100, I wrote: > - but the *WG* has the last word on any policy decision, so we call > for two weeks of "Last Call" on this decision > > Procedure-wise, this is not about the *content* of the proposal now, and > it's not useful to repeat the discussion about routing table growth etc. > now - we've heard all arguments. What we need to decide now is whether > the voices from the community so far form "rough consensus" on the > proposal, or not. Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: - explicit statements of "we have consensus": (Scott Leibrand, Sascha Lenz, Florian Fuessl, James Blessing, Jasper Jans, Randy Bush, Dan Luedtke, Thomas Schallar, Sascha Luck, [Nina Bargisen]) - statements of "we do not have consensus" (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous Remco Van Mook) - side-discussions about "what is consensus" (Randy Bush, Immo, Nick Hilliard, Jim Reid, Peter Koch, Turchanyi Geza, Sascha Lenz, Thomas Schallar, Randy Bush) - comments about the content of the proposal, and/or routing technology, and not answering the question asked (Lutz Donnerhacke, Turchanyi Geza, Jan Zorz, Sander Steffann, Nick Hilliard, Turchanyi Geza, Erik Bais, Randy Bush, Vladislav Potapov, Hendrik Voelker, Masataka Ohta, Remco Van Mook) Given that only two voices explicitely said "we have no consensus", and quite a number of people backed the decision by the AP WG chairs to declare consensus, we stick to our decision. What happens next: - the proposal goes back to the Working Group Chairs collective for the final decision (as per PDP, ripe-500, 2.4 / 3rd paragraph) - if they agree on that, the proposal will become policy If you strongly believe that process has not been followed and there was no consensus, the RIPE PDP (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-500) has an appeals procedure (Appendix A, 3.3), in which case the RIPE chair will have the last word). 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 immo.ripe at be.free.de Thu Jan 5 14:35:09 2012 From: immo.ripe at be.free.de (Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:35:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Gert wrote: > Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions > following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: [...] > - statements of "we do not have consensus" > (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous > Remco Van Mook) I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place. Immo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Thu Jan 5 14:56:44 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:56:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <20120105135644.GY72014@Space.Net> Hi Immo, On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:35:09PM +0100, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > Gert wrote: > > Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions > > following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: > [...] > > - statements of "we do not have consensus" > > (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous > > Remco Van Mook) > > I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have > consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not > objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. > > Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place. Thanks for the clarification. This wasn't fully clear to me - now it is :-) 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 16:52:41 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:52:41 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: Hello, I am sorry, I should say that some people definitely misinterpreted my words. And probably not only mines I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. I am not sure that I want to spend time to fill a formal appeal, however, may be. Thanks for your considerations, G?za On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg wrote: > Gert wrote: > > Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions > > following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: > [...] > > - statements of "we do not have consensus" > > (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be > unanimous > > Remco Van Mook) > > I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we > have > consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has > not > objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. > > Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first > place. > > Immo > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Jan 5 17:30:32 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:30:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> Message-ID: <20120105163032.GZ72014@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:52:41PM +0100, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. Please re-read the mails you have sent. We needed something very clear, like "no, we do not have consensus" or "yes, this is good enough for (rough) consensus" here. You made very clear that you do not like the proposal, but that does not automatically make it a statement of non-consensus - there was one e-mail which very clearly stated: "I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea [...], but [...] so it seems that we are in fact at a consensus *but* [...]" so "not liking the proposal but still thinking the WG has reached rough consensus on it" is quite possible. Since your mails didn't contain clear statements of consensus or not, they have not been counted as either. 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 turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 22:39:06 2012 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 22:39:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02 In-Reply-To: <20120105163032.GZ72014@Space.Net> References: <20111208211234.GV72014@Space.Net> <20120105125756.GA28305@Space.Net> <20120105133508.GB16421@benabuFaUl.be.free.de> <20120105163032.GZ72014@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hello Gert, may I quote myself? fromTurchanyi Geza turchanyi.geza at gmail.com toaddress-policy-wg at ripe.net ccPeter Koch , Randy Bush dateSat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:33 AMsubjectRe: [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02mailed-bygmail.com hide details 12/10/11 Hello, I am glad to see that I am not alone. However, I am still worried that several people voted for a free beer. OK, free beer is nice if somebody is ready to pay it ;-(), but this case is a different one. The problem is that the limits of the technology can not be changed by voting and concensus declaration. AND the whole policy addresses global issues. The policy proposal was a very bad message for other regions. Liberty to pollut (in this case: the global routing table) is not a liberty for me. Thanks, G?za On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > I would certainly hope that these objections will not be ignored > > but considered addressed. > > the concerns (which careful reading of the thread would show that i > shared with geza) were not 'addressed' in the sense of overcome. > randy > > These were very clear messages, I think. Thanks, G?za On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:52:41PM +0100, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. > > Please re-read the mails you have sent. > > We needed something very clear, like "no, we do not have consensus" or > "yes, this is good enough for (rough) consensus" here. > > You made very clear that you do not like the proposal, but that does not > automatically make it a statement of non-consensus - there was one e-mail > which very clearly stated: > > "I don't like the policy as I think its a bad idea [...], but [...] so it > seems that we are in fact at a consensus *but* [...]" > > so "not liking the proposal but still thinking the WG has reached rough > consensus on it" is quite possible. > > Since your mails didn't contain clear statements of consensus or not, > they have not been counted as either. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Mon Jan 9 17:23:11 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:23:11 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> Message-ID: <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> On 04/01/2012 23:58, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Yes, as you said. We have been through this discussion and there is no > point in re-doing it again. Your suggestion is just inserting the pointless > obstacle, making LIRs claim they will do 6rd even if they do not intend to > do so - to get /29. We can go around in circles, but I'm not sure we need > this :) > > We thought to insert partially your idea with suggestion, that LIR should > clarify just for documentation purposes, why they need more than /29, but > at the end decided, that this is not adding anything, just making the > policy longer. Hi Jan, maybe we need to disagree. I don't support the proposal as-is, but would support the proposal if it were to include minimal justification for /29 (based on the current default of /32). To recap, the reason I hold this view is: - it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR, but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not. - many LIRs will never need to use 6rd or any other transition technology, so assigning an extra 3 bits of address space is wasteful - For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway. - RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a duty of good stewardship to the resources which they maintain. Increasing the amount of space allocated to LIRS by a factor of 8 without any justification whatever is (imo) bad stewardship of resources. Nick From jan at go6.si Tue Jan 10 09:28:42 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:28:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> On 1/9/12 5:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > maybe we need to disagree. I don't support the proposal as-is, but would > support the proposal if it were to include minimal justification for /29 > (based on the current default of /32). Nick, hi. Ok, I hear what you are saying. > > To recap, the reason I hold this view is: > > - it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR, > but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not. I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > - many LIRs will never need to use 6rd or any other transition technology, > so assigning an extra 3 bits of address space is wasteful > > - For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like > this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway. > > - RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a duty of good stewardship to the resources > which they maintain. Increasing the amount of space allocated to LIRS by a > factor of 8 without any justification whatever is (imo) bad stewardship of > resources. Let's see what others think - WG, any thoughts? Cheers, Jan From madams at netcologne.de Wed Jan 11 14:13:25 2012 From: madams at netcologne.de (Michael Adams) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:13:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> Message-ID: <4F0D8AF5.4070106@netcologne.de> Am 10.01.2012 09:28, schrieb Jan Zorz @ go6.si: >> - it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR, >> but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not. > > I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) Perhaps we should include a footnode a /29 may increase the membership fee ;-) I don't think a minimal justification gets us any benefit. If a LIR just has to say '6RD' he can do this without any thinking. Let's skip this step. >> - many LIRs will never need to use 6rd or any other transition technology, >> so assigning an extra 3 bits of address space is wasteful >> >> - For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like >> this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway. We don't intend to use 6RD but we would like to extend our allocation to /29 in order to configure proper v6 address-pools on our access-routers. For us the proposal will resolve a real existing problem. If we wouldn't need a /29 I wouldn't request it. Why should I? I'm not afraid not getting more v6 space any time later. >> - RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a duty of good stewardship to the resources >> which they maintain. Increasing the amount of space allocated to LIRS by a >> factor of 8 without any justification whatever is (imo) bad stewardship of >> resources. > > Let's see what others think - WG, any thoughts? For me good stewardship also means to take care about the problems of it's members. Sometimes it may be difficult to find the right balance between not beeing wasteful and allocating the needed ip space. But as this workgroup is listening to the different pro's and con's it's already doing a good job. I see this a good stewardship. And I support the proposal as it is. cheers, Michael -- Michael Adams Tel: +49 221 2222 657 Network Engineering & Design Fax: +49 221 2222 7657 NetCologne Gesch?ftsf?hrer Gesellschaft f?r Telekommunikation mbH Dr. Hans Konle (Sprecher) Am Coloneum 9 Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Zankel 50829 K?ln HRB 25580, Amtsgericht K?ln From dr at cluenet.de Wed Jan 11 15:14:16 2012 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:14:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0D8AF5.4070106@netcologne.de> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> <4F0D8AF5.4070106@netcologne.de> Message-ID: <20120111141416.GA31004@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Michael Adams wrote: > >> - For the sort of LIR which doesn't require a transition technology like > >> this, /32 is probably a lot more than the LIR will ever need anyway. > > We don't intend to use 6RD but we would like to extend our allocation to /29 > in order to configure proper v6 address-pools on our access-routers. For us > the proposal will resolve a real existing problem. If we wouldn't need a /29 > I wouldn't request it. Why should I? I'm not afraid not getting more v6 space > any time later. Still, having the "initial request" policy being severely more relaxed than the "additional request" policy poses looming problems for those who will have to request more address space later on. But it's a step into the right direction... Best regards, Daniel (sharing the same pain) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl Wed Jan 11 14:37:50 2012 From: Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl (Jerzy Pawlus) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:37:50 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0D8AF5.4070106@netcologne.de> (message from Michael Adams on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:13:25 +0100) References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> <4F0D8AF5.4070106@netcologne.de> Message-ID: <86y5te8imp.fsf@nc.cyf-kr.edu.pl> Hi, I opt for extending allocation to /29 for these LIRs which simply request it. Kind regards, Jurek From ms at uakom.sk Wed Jan 11 15:42:15 2012 From: ms at uakom.sk (Martin Stanislav) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:42:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> Message-ID: <20120111144215.GF4358@moon.uakom.sk> Hi Jan, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 09:28:42AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 1/9/12 5:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >maybe we need to disagree. I don't support the proposal as-is, but would > >support the proposal if it were to include minimal justification for /29 > >(based on the current default of /32). > > > >- it is a minimal change which requires virtually no overhead by the LIR, > >but will get them to think about whether they really need the space or not. > > I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them > think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) That's something for a requester to think about. The minimal change Nick talks about above and tracking the reason of usage is also of possible interest to the rest of the community. Well it rather seems like a minority of it so far. The proposed policy change reads like this: No questions asked if the requested IPv6 address space size (to be) allocated to a LIR is >=/32 && <=/29 whatever the intended usage reason is, e.g. the LIR's customer base size, a need for a transition technology. Have I missed anything ? Martin From jan at go6.si Wed Jan 11 15:55:44 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:55:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <20120111144215.GF4358@moon.uakom.sk> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> <20120111144215.GF4358@moon.uakom.sk> Message-ID: <4F0DA2F0.8030403@go6.si> On 1/11/12 3:42 PM, Martin Stanislav wrote: >> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them >> think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > That's something for a requester to think about. Hi, Exactly. It's up to how we define charging schema, but basically, yes, you are right. > > The minimal change Nick talks about above and tracking the reason > of usage is also of possible interest to the rest of the community. > Well it rather seems like a minority of it so far. > > The proposed policy change reads like this: > No questions asked if the requested IPv6 address space size (to be) > allocated to a LIR is>=/32&& <=/29 whatever the intended usage reason is, > e.g. the LIR's customer base size, a need for a transition technology. > Have I missed anything ? No. That's correct understanding. :) Cheers, Jan From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Jan 12 17:22:28 2012 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:22:28 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> Message-ID: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95B8F22C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi, Jan Zorz wrote: [...] > I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make them > think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) As the WG does not control the charging scheme it does not seem sensible to rely on the charging scheme remaining the same for the effectiveness of a policy created in the WG. Regards, Leo From jan at go6.si Fri Jan 13 10:42:38 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:42:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Discussion Period extended until 30 January (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95B8F22C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <20120102141122.79CC928446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F04A1F5.3040502@inex.ie> <4F04E78D.7030809@go6.si> <4F0B146F.5090909@inex.ie> <4F0BF6BA.2060207@go6.si> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95B8F22C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <4F0FFC8E.4000700@go6.si> On 1/12/12 5:22 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: >> I think the price difference in LIR membership will probably make >> them think - more resources, bigger LIR ;) > > As the WG does not control the charging scheme it does not seem > sensible to rely on the charging scheme remaining the same for the > effectiveness of a policy created in the WG. Leo, hi thnx for comment. It is not a matter of "relying", as we don't control charging scheme - and charging scheme must not affect the policy itself and vice-versa. Agree fully, but currently I can not see that this affects the proposal - but we need to keep this in mind in the future. Cheers, Jan From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Jan 17 14:25:00 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:25:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. Changes in version 2.0 include: - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to before 14 February 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From nick at inex.ie Tue Jan 17 22:54:57 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:54:57 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> I have a direct interest in this proposal. Having got that out of the way, I generally agree with principal of the proposal. If a bunch of organisations want to bunch together and set up some common infrastructure for interconnection, this is probably more important than giving public ip to a tiny number of dial up end users. One suggestion: > Assignments will only be made to IXPs who have already applied for, or > received an IPv6 assignment for their peering LAN. This is pointless. You can't make people use IPv6 and politically stuffing it down the throat of an IXP won't do anything other than cause facepalming. It certainly won't cause ipv6 to be more rapidly deployed. Either IPv6 will happen because of necessity or it won't. If IXP participants want ipv6, then they will push the exchange operator to implement it, and it will be done. But mandating an ipv6 assignment request in an ipv4 assignment policy is, well, silly. Also, a nit: > This space will be used to run an Internet Exchange Point peering LAN, > other uses are forbidden. The comma should be replaced with either a semicolon or else a full stop. Nick From henk at uijterwaal.nl Wed Jan 18 09:07:20 2012 From: henk at uijterwaal.nl (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:07:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <201201171325.q0HDPbkq049927@mxdrop103.xs4all.nl> References: <201201171325.q0HDPbkq049927@mxdrop103.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4F167DB8.6090509@uijterwaal.nl> On 17/01/2012 14:25, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of the policy proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs > with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback > received on the mailing list. We have published the new version > (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the > proposal. > > Changes in version 2.0 include: > > - Specified that a /16 will be reserved from the final /8 > - The addition of two bullet points on the assignment size and on the > use of space returned in the new section 5.6.2. Detail: section 5 should (probably) say "clause 1 or clause 2". More general: it is entirely possible that the final /8 (minus the /16 for IXPs) will be distributed before the /16 for IXPs has run out. What will happen to the IXP-/16 then? Considering that any new organization will only get IPv6, a new IXP in that region will only need v6 connectivity anyway, so why have a seperate block then? Henk > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > > > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to before 14 February 2012. > > Regards, > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From chrish at consol.net Wed Jan 18 18:32:16 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (chrish at consol.net) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:32:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> Hi! On 01/17/2012 10:54 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I have a direct interest in this proposal. Having got that out of the way, > I generally agree with principal of the proposal. If a bunch of > organisations want to bunch together and set up some common infrastructure > for interconnection, this is probably more important than giving public ip > to a tiny number of dial up end users. Sorry but no, that's not acceptable. ISPs or IXPs are users of IP addresses. Just like anyone else. Actually ISPs have a bunch of ways to deal with situations where they can't get as much address space as they'd wish to. The generic enduser doesn't. A fair distribution had to be based on equal distribution. How to define this is ofc arguable - but if there's an enduser-need (or, say, 16 of them) e.g. for a /28, which is just rejected while a hand full of ISPs (together already using maybe several /16) get further /24s - that'd just be outrageous. Nothing against you personally - but i think the fact that this proposal has quite a crowd of supporters here, of which actually virtually all are IXP-persons, while the majority of non-IXP-persons is simply hardly represented at all, is a severe legitimacy problem. I think doing 'net community' work that way is not a good thing - that way lies suffering. > This is pointless. You can't make people use IPv6 and politically stuffing > it down the throat of an IXP won't do anything other than cause > facepalming. It certainly won't cause ipv6 to be more rapidly deployed. > > Either IPv6 will happen because of necessity or it won't. If IXP > participants want ipv6, then they will push the exchange operator to > implement it, and it will be done. But mandating an ipv6 assignment > request in an ipv4 assignment policy is, well, silly. I agree on that one. While we're at it, on proposals in general: That "Rationale"-section of course always has an "a) Arguments supporting the proposal" paragraph, where the authors try to sell their standpoint. Usually - this case is no exception - at least in part with blatantly wrong information. The "b) Arguments opposing the proposal" paragraph practically always consists of: "None." (which is probably almost never true) - experience shows that this paragraph also never changes, not if arguments pop up in the discussion of the proposal, not even if opposers point to this paragraph and suggest the respective arguments should be listed there. That's pathetic. If proposers regularly don't have the balls to also mention the opposing arguments, then just drop the "Rationale"-section, for dignity's sake... Regards, Chris From nick at inex.ie Wed Jan 18 19:15:21 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:15:21 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> On 18/01/2012 17:32, chrish at consol.net wrote: > A fair distribution had to be based on equal distribution. How to define > this is ofc arguable - but if there's an enduser-need (or, say, 16 of > them) e.g. for a /28, which is just rejected while a hand full of ISPs > (together already using maybe several /16) get further /24s - that'd > just be outrageous. Hi Chris, I'd be very interested to hear more on your ideas about how to define fairness. I've tried myself on a number of a occasions to come up with some clear ideas about what constitutes "fair" in an environment of scarcity, but unfortunately have made very little progress. Certainly I'd agree that it's very easy to define what's unfair. That would be when someone received more IP address space than they ought to have got. But fairness? Not so easy. Anyway, you obviously have some pretty clear ideas about all of this, so would you be able to share them? The second last /8 will run out in the next couple of months, and we're going to have the most unholy bunfight when it does. Obviously it would be much better to come up with a final definition of fair while people are still quite mellow about v4 resource allocation. Nick From chrish at consol.net Thu Jan 19 13:56:21 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:56:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> Hi! On 01/18/2012 07:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > I'd be very interested to hear more on your ideas about how to define > fairness. I've tried myself on a number of a occasions to come up with > some clear ideas about what constitutes "fair" in an environment of > scarcity, but unfortunately have made very little progress. I believe defining fairness is undoubtedly always a challenging issue. But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness. So what i can define in the issue at hand is: It is more fair not to introduce privileges for such groups than otherwise. So let's just not make IXPs/ISPs more equal than others. > would you be able to share them? The second last /8 will run out in the > next couple of months, and we're going to have the most unholy bunfight > when it does. Obviously it would be much better to come up with a final Humm - we're talking about a proposal to make a small group special in the mentioned case: We are already in the unholy bunfight (cheers!). But you asked about the "IPv4 depletion" issue. As you seem interested, as a little hint, just take a look e.g. into the first /2 ... And there are a lot more issues of that kind... Regards, Chris From chrish at consol.net Thu Jan 19 14:16:06 2012 From: chrish at consol.net (Chris) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:16:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F181667.3000004@foobar.org> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> <4F181667.3000004@foobar.org> Message-ID: <4F181796.1040305@consol.net> Hi! On 01/19/2012 02:11 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally >> is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness. > > So, one person or company, one IP address? If that's what you want to give to anybody, that should be what you give to IXPs/ISPs. (You probably won't find anybody else supporting this...) Regards, Chris From nick at inex.ie Thu Jan 19 14:43:34 2012 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:43:34 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F181E06.9080607@inex.ie> On 19/01/2012 12:56, Chris wrote: > But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally > is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness. So, one person or company, one IP address? Nick From nick at foobar.org Thu Jan 19 14:11:03 2012 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:11:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) In-Reply-To: <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> References: <20120117132538.12C9028446@prometheus.inex.ie> <4F15EE31.6080405@inex.ie> <4F170220.3020302@consol.net> <4F170C39.2070802@inex.ie> <4F1812F5.8000301@consol.net> Message-ID: <4F181667.3000004@foobar.org> On 19/01/2012 12:56, Chris wrote: > But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally > is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness. So, one person or company, one IP address? Nick From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jan 19 20:08:36 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:08:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted Message-ID: Dear working group, After we (the chairs of this working group) have declared consensus on policy proposal 2011-02 the policy development process has been evaluated by the collective of all the RIPE working group chairs. After a very thorough analysis (this has not been an easy process!) they reached the conclusion that the declaration of consensus is valid. We now ask the RIPE NCC to implement policy proposal 2011-02. As promised we also give ourselves the task to keep a very close eye on the effects of this policy change. We will report on these effects at least at every RIPE meeting. Thank you, The APWG Chairs From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jan 19 23:56:13 2012 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:56:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> Hi, It was brought to my attention that I only mentioned the proposal number and not the title of the proposal... > We now ask the RIPE NCC to implement policy proposal 2011-02. As promised we also give ourselves the task to keep a very close eye on the effects of this policy change. We will report on these effects at least at every RIPE meeting. For those who have erased all memories of 2011-02 and what it is about: 2011-02: Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 :-) Sander From maildanrl at googlemail.com Fri Jan 20 09:15:04 2012 From: maildanrl at googlemail.com (Dan Luedtke) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:15:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted In-Reply-To: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> References: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> Message-ID: > For those who have erased all memories of 2011-02 and what it is about: Finally, after one year :) Now we have to have an eye on it. What is the best way to keep track of changes caused by this policy? Does the RIPE NCC keep special records for this? When will there be first statistic data? Thanks to everyone who participated in the policy-discussion, although I hope the 'told-you-so'-party will not win ;) regards, danrl -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de From maildanrl at googlemail.com Fri Jan 20 09:25:04 2012 From: maildanrl at googlemail.com (Dan Luedtke) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:25:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted In-Reply-To: References: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> Message-ID: >?What is the best way to keep track of changes caused by this policy? To clarify: For someone who does not have access to a DFZ-router or a full table. I remember some nice graphs from Gert/SpaceNet came up during the discussion. regards, ?danrl -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de From gert at space.net Fri Jan 20 09:51:12 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:51:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted In-Reply-To: References: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20120120085112.GC55041@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:25:04AM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote: > >?What is the best way to keep track of changes caused by this policy? > To clarify: For someone who does not have access to a DFZ-router or a > full table. > > I remember some nice graphs from Gert/SpaceNet came up during the discussion. > regards, I expect the NCC to keep track on their assignments (they already do), and we'll ask them to regularily report at the APWG sessions. My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/weekly/ - and they are now autogenerated every day, so you always have the most recent numbers there. Sometimes the text labels in the graphs are a positioned a bit weird, if the X axis changes and I don't adjust the rest properly in time... but that's what you get by adapting scrips that have been written for "run twice a year, check the output, adapt until everything looks nice!" to "run daily, only look at the results every few weeks" :-) But the data "how much PA, how much PI, coming from which region" is in there, and that's the one that will show if 2011-02 should lead to a major disturbance of the force... Gert Doering -- APWG chair and IPv6 number geek -- 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 gert at space.net Fri Jan 20 09:54:20 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:54:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2011-02 has been accepted In-Reply-To: References: <5EDB33DA-61AF-4FDC-9994-488C4DFCE9DA@steffann.nl> <20120120085112.GC55041@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120120085420.GD55041@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:52:53AM +0100, I?igo Ortiz de Urbina wrote: > > My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/weekly/ - and they are > > > Broken link? :-) Indeed, sorry: My statistics are at http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/ there was a /RIPE/ missing. 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Jan 23 13:39:17 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:39:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Jan 23 14:03:25 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:03:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Correction Re: 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI) Message-ID: <4F1D5A9D.1000709@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, in the previous message a mistake occurred. Apologies for the incorrect document reference. The new updated RIPE Document is ripe-545 (not ripe-498) and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ Apologies for any inconvenience Regards Emilio On 1/23/12 1:39 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE > Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > > The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ > > > Thank you for your input. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Jan 26 12:13:35 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:13:35 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F21355F.5080508@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Emilio, does this mean that the changes are already implemented by the IPRAs or is there going to be another announcement? Thanks, Wilfried. Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE > Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 > > > The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ > > > Thank you for your input. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Jan 26 15:33:59 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:33:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Proposal Accepted (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI) In-Reply-To: <4F21355F.5080508@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4F21355F.5080508@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4F216457.80505@ripe.net> Dear Wilfried, The RIPE NCC is working on the implementation of this policy. In February, we will publish a new announcement on the Address Policy Working Group Mailing list. Regards Emilio On 1/26/12 12:13 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Emilio, > > does this mean that the changes are already implemented by the IPRAs > or is there going to be another announcement? > > Thanks, > Wilfried. > > Emilio Madaio wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE >> Document ripe-538 has been accepted by the RIPE community. >> >> >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 >> >> >> The updated RIPE Document is ripe-498 and is available at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-545/ >> >> >> Thank you for your input. >> >> Regards >> >> Emilio Madaio >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC > >