From tore at fud.no Tue Apr 2 07:02:24 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:02:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics? Message-ID: <515A6660.4030905@fud.no> Quick question for the WG: What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved" transfers? a) Keep it, or b) Remove it? (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.) Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers (bottom of page) I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused transfers. Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the intention of the statistics is to record ?transfers [that] were denied on the basis of needs evaluation?: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de-aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However, since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into version 2 of 2013-03. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Apr 2 13:44:44 2013 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:44:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics? In-Reply-To: <515A6660.4030905@fud.no> References: <515A6660.4030905@fud.no> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers > only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other > theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, > e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or > de-aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. > Unless there is a valid reason to know of those other failed attempts, there's no harm in removing it. On the other hand, it may be interesting to see a potential sharp increase of failed attempts for whatever reason and a statement of "nothing got rejected either way" may be interesting to some. But not that interesting to force this statistic by means of policy. All in all, I think it's better to weak remove unless someone comes up with a compelling reason. Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 2 16:37:09 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:37:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics? In-Reply-To: <515A6660.4030905@fud.no> References: <515A6660.4030905@fud.no> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A1F8E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Approaching this issue from the standpoint of transparency, statistical accuracy and statistical consistency, which are dear to us social scientists, I would argue to keep it in there. First, there may be a half year or more before 2013-3 goes into effect, if it eventually is passed. So we should during that period gain a statistical read on how many transfers are not approved. Now suppose that 2013-3 is passed and implemented. At worst, the number of non-approved transfers drops to 0. That is not a costly or troublesome thing. If it stays at 0 for a year or two, we can remove that reporting requirement later, and easily. OTOH, there is a chance that there are other reasons they are not approved, which Tore mentioned. In that case the current policy is generating potentially useful information. In short, I see no real gain in removing it now, and a possibility of lost information. We should just wait. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:02 AM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer > statistics? > > Quick question for the WG: > > What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's > requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved" > transfers? > > a) Keep it, or > b) Remove it? > > (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.) > > Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish > aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4- > transfers/table-of-transfers (bottom of page) > > I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its > usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal > reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away > the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused > transfers. > > Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the > intention of the statistics is to record on the basis of needs evaluation>: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers > only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other > theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation, > e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de- > aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size. > > So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its > ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the > policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However, > since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the > WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up > having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people > answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into > version 2 of 2013-03. > > Best regards, > -- > Tore Anderson From mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Apr 10 15:30:28 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:30:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 8 May 2013. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Wed Apr 10 15:43:34 2013 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:43:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact AnalysisPublished (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses) References: <201304101339.r3ADdHPm013588@imx-sl1.imerjamail.com> Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A140405308139@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> I agree with this proposal. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood at imerja.com NIC: JS7259-RIPE -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Hallmark House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO9001 / ISO27001 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 tore at fud.no Thu Apr 11 11:46:20 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:46:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5166866C.4010600@fud.no> > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Tore From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Thu Apr 11 13:56:32 2013 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:56:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <51656b8e.c6df0e0a.0873.7e2bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <51656b8e.c6df0e0a.0873.7e2bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 10 April 2013 14:30, Marco Schmidt wrote: > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > support -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From andreas.larsen at ip-only.se Thu Apr 11 14:00:12 2013 From: andreas.larsen at ip-only.se (Andreas Larsen) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:00:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <5166866C.4010600@fud.no> Message-ID: Support Med v?nlig h?lsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Bes?ksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se Den 2013-04-11 11:46 skrev Tore Anderson : > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 > >Support. > >Tore > > From frettled at gmail.com Thu Apr 11 14:04:49 2013 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:04:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <51656b95.08b30e0a.5f51.0052SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <51656b95.08b30e0a.5f51.0052SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, > "Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", > has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this > proposal has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02/draft > I support this proposal. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com Thu Apr 11 14:26:21 2013 From: sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com (sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 05:26:21 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification ofreallocated IPv4 addresses) Message-ID: <20130411052621.ec289651d84890fcbef5f195936e1217.e82898b591.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support. Sandra Brown From Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no Thu Apr 11 19:29:34 2013 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:29:34 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <5166866C.4010600@fud.no> Message-ID: On 11.04.13 11:46, "Tore Anderson" wrote: > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 > >Support. > >Tore Support /Ragnar From erik at bais.name Fri Apr 12 10:20:18 2013 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:20:18 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C48968F36@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 Support +1 From jkennedy at lgi.com Fri Apr 12 13:17:12 2013 From: jkennedy at lgi.com (Kennedy, James) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:17:12 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C48968F36@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> References: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C48968F36@e2010-mbx-c1n1.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: <13E63C78A6256E4A857726374FBF926E112E1ADE@NLAMSPEXMB003.upcit.ds.upc.biz> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 +1 support for this proposal. James Kennedy Liberty Global From andy at nosignal.org Tue Apr 16 09:49:45 2013 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:49:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <10a64cab-5813-48fb-a6e4-78f46bd4ea0c@DB3EHSMHS008.ehs.local> Message-ID: On 10/04/2013 14:30, "Marco Schmidt" wrote: >"Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", Support. Andy From andy at nosignal.org Tue Apr 16 10:53:54 2013 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:53:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) In-Reply-To: <5156F02E.8000101@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi, Tore -- On 30/03/2013 14:01, "Tore Anderson" wrote: >In a nutshell: 2013-03 amputates the dead policy limbs. Cosmetic surgery >can follow later. :-) Cleaning stuff up is good, and this policy is a great step - thanks for bravely taking up the challenge. I support the ambition of the policy, and happy to support the current wording. Richard's English tweaks should be included as well. There was a lot of debate about whether to remove that 'conservation is an aim of the policy' at the start - I would support a 2013-03-bis which does not delete the conservation line if this is required to build consensus, but it's time to delete the legacy stuff. Andy From gert at space.net Wed Apr 17 15:23:57 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:23:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130417132357.GA77842@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, the discussion phase for 2013-03 has ended yesterday. Sufficient support was voiced so the proposer and WG chairs decided that we can move on to review phase. There will be some editorial changes based on the feedback received. The review phase will start as soon as the RIPE NCC has completed the impact analysis - which might take a bit longer than usual, given that this proposal is somewhat more intrusive than the usual stuff :-) regards, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-582, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 16 April 2013. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- 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 mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Apr 17 15:30:17 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:30:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-09 Proposal Accepted (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-526, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-09 The updated RIPE document is ripe-587 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-587 Thank you for your input. Regards Marco Schmidt on behalf of the Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From dr at cluenet.de Thu Apr 18 10:58:59 2013 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:58:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: <20130410133933.35F9C108908@mail1.cluenet.de> References: <20130410133933.35F9C108908@mail1.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20130418085859.GA11039@srv03.cluenet.de> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 supported. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com Thu Apr 18 11:41:11 2013 From: Christoph.Neukirch at xing.com (Christoph Neukirch) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:41:11 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Am 10.04.13 15:30 schrieb "Marco Schmidt" unter : >The draft document for the proposal described in 2013-02, >"Removal of requirement for certification of reallocated IPv4 addresses", >has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this >proposal has also been published > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-02 +1 support kind regards Christoph Neukirch XING AG From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Apr 18 15:11:34 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:11:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2013-03, "No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup", has ended. A draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From mschmidt at ripe.net Tue Apr 23 15:02:56 2013 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:02:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy proposal" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/proposals/2012-03 Reason for withdrawal: The proposer was against needs justification and had initially proposed a 24 month justification period out of a desire for compatibility with the policies of other RIRs. The proposer views the ongoing policy proposal 2013-03 "No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup" as being more in line with their views. As a consequence, the proposer has withdrawn the proposal. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC From mestrada at ripe.net Thu Apr 25 16:36:11 2013 From: mestrada at ripe.net (Marisol Estrada) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:36:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [news] Policy Proposal 2012-09 "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments" implemented Message-ID: <51793F5B.2010001@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE policy proposal 2012-09, "Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for temporary assignments under this policy. The full proposal can be found at: The updated "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies" document is available at: The "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Request Form " can be found at: The supporting notes can be found at: If you have any questions, please contact . Regards, Marisol Estrada RIPE NCC From swmike at swm.pp.se Fri Apr 26 08:03:25 2013 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:03:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver Message-ID: Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. discussion has ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) adopt similar policy. We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check). If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the other RIR has rules that hinder)? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From tore at fud.no Fri Apr 26 10:55:57 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <517A411D.8010102@fud.no> * Mikael Abrahamsson > Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. > > > > discussion has > ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) > adopt similar policy. Interesting, thanks for the link! > We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the > seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is > properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check). There are conjecture/speculation regarding the existence or formation of an IPv4 ?black market?, which runs counter to the goal of keeping the registry up to date and correct. I think one could make the argument that 2013-03 would counteract this to some extent - the fewer hurdles need to be overcome in order to perform a "legit" transfer, in particular concepts like need evaluation, there is a reduced chance that that the transfer will done without informing the NCC. That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to begin with. > If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it > comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both > inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the > other RIR has rules that hinder)? For starters, there's no policy that allows transfer of PI blocks. So if an enterprise, who is not an LIR, wants to obtain/buy address space for PI-like use, they'd have to do it "in the shadows", so to speak. (They would have the option of joining the NCC in order to become a LIR, obtain the address space, and assign all of it to themselves though, but if they have no plans of ever making assignments to downstream customers, I suspect that's simply too many hoops to jump through for some.) Also, I don't think an existing PI holder could transfer his address space to a LIR (and convert it to PA in the process), which someone might want to do at some point. AIUI, the PI/PA distinction was put in place to limit fragmentation. One might wonder if it has any utility now that all the space has been handed out. Tore From sander at steffann.nl Fri Apr 26 12:18:06 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:18:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, > Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. > > Interesting! Thanks, Sander From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 29 04:51:54 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:51:54 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver In-Reply-To: <517A411D.8010102@fud.no> References: <517A411D.8010102@fud.no> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CF0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> At the ARIN meeting last week The RIPE 2013-3 proposal was discussed extensively at two "lunch table talks," one of which I attended. On the day I attended, there was very little attempt to defend needs assessments per se. The comments centered instead on how passage of 2013-3 would prevent inter-RIR transfers until and unless ARIN followed suit. Assessments of the likelihood of that happening differed. Some felt that once RIPE took the first step and demonstrated that the world did not end, ARIN would be likely to follow suit; others felt that RIPE would reverse its policy and institute some perfunctory, liberalized form of needs assessment in order to qualify for inter-RIR transfers. Also, I'd like address this claim of Tore's: > That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". > My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and > paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my > customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current > address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to > begin with. Really? Post-depletion, all IPv4 allocations will be through transfers. While eliminating needs assessments will reduce bureaucracy, if there are no transfers under what conditions would RIPE-NCC be doing IPv4 needs assessments? Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 29 10:31:48 2013 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:31:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CF0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <517A411D.8010102@fud.no> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CF0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517E2FF4.70300@fud.no> * Milton L Mueller > Also, I'd like address this claim of Tore's: > >> That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy >> proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the >> bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make >> assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal >> even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions >> allowing for transfers to begin with. > > Really? Post-depletion, all IPv4 allocations will be through > transfers. While eliminating needs assessments will reduce > bureaucracy, if there are no transfers under what conditions would > RIPE-NCC be doing IPv4 needs assessments? My motivation is primarily to reduce the LIRs' amount of paperwork and bureaucracy - not the RIPE NCC's. Currently, all LIRs are required by policy to perform need evaluation for every single assignment they make from their allocations. The RIPE NCC doesn't get involved, unless 1) the LIR willingly asks the NCC to help out with the evaluation, 2) the assignment exceeds the LIR's Assignment Window, or 3) the LIR is later subjected to an LIR Audit. Filling out, evaluating, and archiving all this paperwork takes up a lot of my time, time I'd much rather spend on deploying IPv6, for example. I want to be a technocrat, not a bureaucrat. Hence the proposal. Don't get me wrong, though. That 2013-03 reduces the NCC's workload and the LIRs' bureaucratic hurdles wrt transfers, are also positive effects. But they are not my main motivation for making the proposal. Thanks for the update from the ARIN meeting! Tore