From nat at nuqe.net Sat Nov 1 17:11:10 2014 From: nat at nuqe.net (Nat Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:11:10 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <54525228.c49dc20a.5439.ffff96a4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <54525228.c49dc20a.5439.ffff96a4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I support this. -- Nat https://nat.ms +44 7531 750292 On 30 October 2014 14:56, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) > Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- Nat https://nat.ms +44 7531 750292 From nat at nuqe.net Sat Nov 1 17:11:03 2014 From: nat at nuqe.net (Nat Morris) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 16:11:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <545233c4.8e4ab40a.7e1f.ffffc71eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <545233c4.8e4ab40a.7e1f.ffffc71eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I support this. -- Nat https://nat.ms +44 7531 750292 On 30 October 2014 12:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From noc at ntx.ru Sat Nov 1 22:41:49 2014 From: noc at ntx.ru (NTX NOC) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 00:41:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <54525228.c49dc20a.5439.ffff96a4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5455539D.3000706@ntx.ru> Greetings everybody, We support this too. I lot of old polices should be updated not to slow the world progress. Yuri. On 01.11.2014 19:11, Nat Morris wrote: > I support this. > From noc at ntx.ru Sat Nov 1 22:41:34 2014 From: noc at ntx.ru (NTX NOC) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 00:41:34 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <545233c4.8e4ab40a.7e1f.ffffc71eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5455538E.7040307@ntx.ru> Greetings everybody, We support this too. I lot of old polices should be updated not to slow the world progress. Yuri. On 01.11.2014 19:11, Nat Morris wrote: > I support this. > From ak at list.ak.cx Sun Nov 2 11:11:38 2014 From: ak at list.ak.cx (Andre Keller) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:11:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141030145917.378CF4E0AD@imx002.zrh01.ndnet.ch> References: <20141030145917.378CF4E0AD@imx002.zrh01.ndnet.ch> Message-ID: <5456035A.9080803@list.ak.cx> Hi, I also support this proposal. Regards andr? From marty at akamai.com Mon Nov 3 07:16:28 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 01:16:28 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <27CE2179D1925A4F9F4874725C3B4E0FB7D05B2120@COSMOS.nbg.geneon.de> References: <20141030150409.437B251F1@mx4.geneon.de> <27CE2179D1925A4F9F4874725C3B4E0FB7D05B2120@COSMOS.nbg.geneon.de> Message-ID: <48DB8980-F6B8-45E4-87E4-419D0267A751@akamai.com> Not sure I agree with the rationale, but that's moot. I agree with the results. Support. Best, Martin > On Oct 31, 2014, at 07:43, Andreas Vogler wrote: > > I support this proposal. > > Regards > > Andreas Vogler > > Geneon GmbH I Gutenstetter Str. 8a I 90449 N?rnberg I Entwicklungszentrum Berlin I L?westr. 25 I 10249 Berlin I Tel.: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-21 I Fax: +49 (0)911 36 78 88-20 I Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Yong-Harry Steiert I Registergericht N?rnberg HRB 17193 I USt-IdNr.: DE207317266 I E-Mail: andreas.vogler at geneon.de I www.geneon.de > > Ein Unternehmen der Willmy MediaGroup >>> www.willmy.de > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:57 > An: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) > > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > From mail at danrl.de Mon Nov 3 14:27:31 2014 From: mail at danrl.de (=?UTF-8?Q?Dan_L=C3=BCdtke?=) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:27:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <545233c4.8e4ab40a.7e1f.ffffc71eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4a0946e83f9e28a1ab8766b85c018906@danrl.de> I support this, since I know parties that are affected by this and struggling to do it the right way. -- Dan L?dtke https://www.danrl.de/ From js at dacor.de Wed Nov 5 12:49:38 2014 From: js at dacor.de (Julian Seifert) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:49:38 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <10fa74a0-9ed0-4970-869b-43bbdbd79b83@exchange.suecdacor.local> References: <10fa74a0-9ed0-4970-869b-43bbdbd79b83@exchange.suecdacor.local> Message-ID: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1BA6@exchange.suecdacor.local> Hi, i support this. kind regards, Julian Seifert ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:56 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From msokolova at evolink.com Wed Nov 5 12:54:03 2014 From: msokolova at evolink.com (Margarita Sokolova) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 13:54:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1BA6@exchange.suecdacor.local> References: <10fa74a0-9ed0-4970-869b-43bbdbd79b83@exchange.suecdacor.local> <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1BA6@exchange.suecdacor.local> Message-ID: <004001cff8ef$321a72a0$964f57e0$@com> Hello, I support it too. Sincerely yours, Margarita Sokolova -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Julian Seifert Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:50 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) Hi, i support this. kind regards, Julian Seifert ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:56 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From elvis at v4escrow.net Wed Nov 5 12:59:45 2014 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:59:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <004001cff8ef$321a72a0$964f57e0$@com> References: <10fa74a0-9ed0-4970-869b-43bbdbd79b83@exchange.suecdacor.local> <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1BA6@exchange.suecdacor.local> <004001cff8ef$321a72a0$964f57e0$@com> Message-ID: <545A1131.4010004@v4escrow.net> already mentioned at the mic during RIPE69 you have my support for it. kind regards, elvis On 05/11/14 11:54, Margarita Sokolova wrote: > Hello, > > I support it too. > > > > Sincerely yours, > Margarita Sokolova > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Julian Seifert > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:50 PM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS > Number Transfers) > > Hi, > > i support this. > > kind regards, > > Julian Seifert > > ________________________________________ > Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Marco > Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:56 > An: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number > Transfers) > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number > Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > -- Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: From js at dacor.de Wed Nov 5 12:59:38 2014 From: js at dacor.de (Julian Seifert) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 11:59:38 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <14e609be-0ba5-4c9b-90fa-033c2e91ebc5@exchange.suecdacor.local> References: <14e609be-0ba5-4c9b-90fa-033c2e91ebc5@exchange.suecdacor.local> Message-ID: <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1C15@exchange.suecdacor.local> Hi, I support this. kind regards, Julian Seifert ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 13:43 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ggiannou at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 13:04:28 2014 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 14:04:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <545233de.4a61b40a.796c.4a1eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <545233de.4a61b40a.796c.4a1eSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, I support the proposal too. George On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggiannou at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 13:09:51 2014 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 14:09:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <545A1131.4010004@v4escrow.net> References: <10fa74a0-9ed0-4970-869b-43bbdbd79b83@exchange.suecdacor.local> <71875FE4961EEE40BA4AACF7168091DEC6AF1BA6@exchange.suecdacor.local> <004001cff8ef$321a72a0$964f57e0$@com> <545A1131.4010004@v4escrow.net> Message-ID: Hi, I support it too. George On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > already mentioned at the mic during RIPE69 > > you have my support for it. > > kind regards, > elvis > > > On 05/11/14 11:54, Margarita Sokolova wrote: > > Hello, > > I support it too. > > > > Sincerely yours, > Margarita Sokolova > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net ] On Behalf Of Julian Seifert > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:50 PM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS > Number Transfers) > > Hi, > > i support this. > > kind regards, > > Julian Seifert > > ________________________________________ > Von: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net]" im Auftrag von "Marco > Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014 15:56 > An: policy-announce at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number > Transfers) > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number > Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > -- > Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 5 13:12:10 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:12:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545A141A.1010107@schiefner.de> Makes all the sense to me. One wonders why this hasn't pooped up much earlier... Cheers, -C. On 30.10.2014 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 5 13:16:17 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:16:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545A1511.8050805@schiefner.de> Makes - like 2014-12 - also all the sense to me. Best, -C. On 30.10.2014 15:56, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) > Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com Wed Nov 5 13:20:45 2014 From: Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com (Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:20:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <8699f50d-2740-418b-a387-b7e1936f990d@TNS-FBU-24-211.corp.telenor.no> References: <8699f50d-2740-418b-a387-b7e1936f990d@TNS-FBU-24-211.corp.telenor.no> Message-ID: <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA72D@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> Support. - Torunn ________________________________________ Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] på vegne av Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 15:56 Til: policy-announce at ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com Wed Nov 5 13:20:26 2014 From: Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com (Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 12:20:26 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <7c0d1262-9419-4d73-8c72-1d4b78719686@TNS-FBU-24-210.corp.telenor.no> References: <7c0d1262-9419-4d73-8c72-1d4b78719686@TNS-FBU-24-210.corp.telenor.no> Message-ID: <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA721@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> Support. - Torunn ________________________________________ Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] på vegne av Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 13:43 Til: policy-announce at ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From luca.cicchelli at top-ix.org Wed Nov 5 13:22:17 2014 From: luca.cicchelli at top-ix.org (Luca Cicchelli) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 13:22:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA72D@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> References: <8699f50d-2740-418b-a387-b7e1936f990d@TNS-FBU-24-211.corp.telenor.no> <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA72D@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> Message-ID: <0CEB197C-0020-421F-8A4A-5B3A02DD40DE@top-ix.org> Supported, too -- Luca Il giorno 05/nov/2014, alle ore 13:20, ha scritto: > Support. > > - Torunn > ________________________________________ > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] på vegne av Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] > Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 15:56 > Til: policy-announce at ripe.net > Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) > Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From elvis at v4escrow.net Wed Nov 5 15:35:51 2014 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:35:51 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA721@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> References: <7c0d1262-9419-4d73-8c72-1d4b78719686@TNS-FBU-24-210.corp.telenor.no> <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC0330DA721@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> Message-ID: <545A35C7.8030102@v4escrow.net> +1 regards, elvis On 05/11/14 12:20, Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com wrote: > Support. > > - Torunn > ________________________________________ > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] på vegne av Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] > Sendt: 30. oktober 2014 13:43 > Til: policy-announce at ripe.net > Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -- Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gabriele.rocca at top-ix.org Wed Nov 5 15:41:55 2014 From: gabriele.rocca at top-ix.org (Gabriele Rocca) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:41:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <545233c8.e34eb40a.3aac.4c53SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <545233c8.e34eb40a.3aac.4c53SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <545A3733.7040608@top-ix.org> I support this proposal. Regards, Gabriele Rocca. Il 30/10/2014 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- Ing. Gabriele Rocca Consorzio TOP-IX Via Bogino 9 - 10123 Torino - Italy Mobile: +39 3346293329 Fax: +39 0118802619 Skype: gabrieleroc LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rocca ? From gabriele.rocca at top-ix.org Wed Nov 5 15:44:35 2014 From: gabriele.rocca at top-ix.org (Gabriele Rocca) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:44:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <54525228.cc4cb40a.6287.ffffc0c7SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <54525228.cc4cb40a.6287.ffffc0c7SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <545A37D3.1000303@top-ix.org> Hi, I support the proposal too. Regards, Gabriele Rocca. Il 30/10/2014 15.56, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) > Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- Ing. Gabriele Rocca Consorzio TOP-IX Via Bogino 9 - 10123 Torino - Italy Mobile: +39 3346293329 Fax: +39 0118802619 Skype: gabrieleroc LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rocca ? From tore at fud.no Thu Nov 6 10:02:57 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:02:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141106100257.673d53cf@envy.fud.no> * Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's done. ;-) Tore From tore at fud.no Thu Nov 6 10:03:00 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:03:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> * Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's done. ;-) Tore From gert at space.net Thu Nov 6 10:19:09 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:19:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> References: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <20141106091909.GP31092@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:03:00AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's > done. ;-) Noted, and since he promised in public, we won't let him off the Hook :-) gert -- 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 10:39:06 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:39:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <545233bc.4560b40a.0e35.787bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <545233bc.4560b40a.0e35.787bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Sorry for not fully support this as everyone else has done so far :-) I support the idea and we really need it, but I have mixed feelings about two words in "section 8.0 Transfer of IPv6 resources" it is in the first sentence: "Any holder of IPv6 address space is allowed to transfer complete or partial blocks of IPv6 address space that were previously allocated or assigned to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry system." Do we really need to have "... or partial" there? Do we understand the consequences of those two words? ... yes I do see several cases where it those two words will save the day, and the amount of abuse is limited but still I'll wonder if we really need it. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 10:42:04 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:42:04 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> References: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Marco Schmidt > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > > +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's > done. ;-) +1 from me to.with that condition. Yes, it will be great when we get to the stage where we only have one transfer document, not several :) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From ripe.address-policy-wg at ml.karotte.org Thu Nov 6 13:08:31 2014 From: ripe.address-policy-wg at ml.karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:08:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <3jT62w3N4Zz12b6F@danton.fire-world.de> References: <3jT62w3N4Zz12b6F@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20141106120831.GA12758@danton.fire-world.de> * Marco Schmidt [2014-10-30 13:51]: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 I support this. Independently I would also support RIPE NCC adding Message-IDs to their outgoing mail so that threading works as intended. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant From ripe.address-policy-wg at ml.karotte.org Thu Nov 6 13:09:02 2014 From: ripe.address-policy-wg at ml.karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:09:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <3jT8vn0gJcz12ZrT@danton.fire-world.de> References: <3jT8vn0gJcz12ZrT@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20141106120901.GB12758@danton.fire-world.de> * Marco Schmidt [2014-10-30 16:00]: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-525, "Autonomous System (AS) > Number Assignment Policies" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 I support this. -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant From gert at space.net Thu Nov 6 13:22:01 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 13:22:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141106120831.GA12758@danton.fire-world.de> References: <3jT62w3N4Zz12b6F@danton.fire-world.de> <20141106120831.GA12758@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20141106122201.GS31092@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:08:31PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > Independently I would also support RIPE NCC adding > Message-IDs to their outgoing mail so that threading works as > intended. I hear you and we'll work with Marco to get this fixed (it used to work), so "no need for everybody to +1 this" :) 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Nov 7 13:56:25 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:56:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141106091909.GP31092@Space.Net> References: <20141106100300.79c75cbb@envy.fud.no> <20141106091909.GP31092@Space.Net> Message-ID: <013f01cffa8a$41ff8790$c5fe96b0$@a2b-internet.com> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:03:00AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > > +1 - on the condition that Erik will clean up after himself when he's > > done. ;-) > Noted, and since he promised in public, we won't let him off the Hook :-) I knew what I got myself into here ... and yes, I will clean up. Thanks for the support :) Erik From ebais at a2b-internet.com Fri Nov 7 14:23:52 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:23:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: References: <545233bc.4560b40a.0e35.787bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <014001cffa8e$179ba4d0$46d2ee70$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Roger, > Sorry for not fully support this as everyone else has done so far :-) > I support the idea and we really need it, but I have mixed feelings > about two words in "section 8.0 Transfer of IPv6 resources" it is in > the first sentence: > "Any holder of IPv6 address space is allowed to transfer complete or > partial blocks of IPv6 address space that were previously allocated or > assigned to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional > Internet Registry system." > Do we really need to have "... or partial" there? Yes we do. > Do we understand the consequences of those two words? Reality of those 2 words are : In case a company decides to split, sell part of their infrastructure or activities, they would be able to do so. The receiving party will have to be a LIR. They would probably already have an v6 Allocation. Resulting that the transfer would require documentation as it would be seen as a subsequent allocation. (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589#subsequent_allocation) I am not saying that it will be easy to do this and because of that, it will not be able to hoard loads of v6 in a single LIR by just doing transfers. > ... yes I do see several cases where it those two words will save the > day, and the amount of abuse is limited but still I'll wonder if we > really need it. The goal is to align policy with reality ... and need for the people in the community. Reality today is that this particular lack within the policy is blocking some things people want to do for very valid reasons. Regards, Erik Bais From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Fri Nov 7 17:47:31 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:47:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?windows-1252?q?2014-07_New_Policy_Proposal_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28Language_Clarification_in_=93IPv4_Address_Allocation_?= =?windows-1252?q?and_Assignment_Policies_for_the_RIPE_NCC_Service_Region?= =?windows-1252?q?=94=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545CF7A3.6040904@schiefner.de> I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:05, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "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/2014-07 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Fri Nov 7 17:55:45 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:55:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?windows-1252?q?2014-11_New_Policy_Proposal_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28Language_Clarification_for_=93Allocating/Assigning_Re?= =?windows-1252?q?sources_to_the_RIPE_NCC=94=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545CF991.7040400@schiefner.de> I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:45, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Allocating/Assigning Resources > to the RIPE NCC" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-11 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Fri Nov 7 18:02:04 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:02:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?windows-1252?q?2014-08_New_Policy_Proposal_?= =?windows-1252?q?=28Language_Clarification_in_=93Contractual_Requirements?= =?windows-1252?q?_for_Provider_Independent_Resource_Holders_in_the_RIPE_N?= =?windows-1252?q?CC_Service_Region=94=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545CFB0C.9080406@schiefner.de> I support this. On 23.10.2014 15:15, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available > for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From ebais at a2b-internet.com Sat Nov 8 17:00:35 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Message-ID: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce at ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From andy at nosignal.org Sun Nov 9 10:58:40 2014 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:58:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <0c65770afc0e40d99520cfea9313074d@AM1FFO11FD010.protection.gbl> References: <0c65770afc0e40d99520cfea9313074d@AM1FFO11FD010.protection.gbl> Message-ID: <20141109095830.GA31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > [... Allow IPv6 Transfer ...] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Support. -a From andy at nosignal.org Sun Nov 9 11:05:49 2014 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:05:49 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> Message-ID: <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 > [... Allow AS Number Transfers ...] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Support the end result but don't support text as it stands. - Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are available from the RIPE NCC. - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with the NCC. -a From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Sun Nov 9 15:02:27 2014 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 14:02:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> Message-ID: <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> >On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >Support the end result but don't support text as it stands. > > - Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary > basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are > available from the RIPE NCC. I think the intention here is to allow temporary transfer of (live) ASNs in order to facilitate network reorganisation. Being able to to get temp ASN assignments wouldn't be useful in that case. > - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and > concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with > the NCC. I don't understand this recent obsession with publishing lists of all transactions and there is no rationale given in the proposal for this either. I could live with anonymised lists though for both approved and disapproved transfers. rgds, Sascha Luck` From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Nov 9 17:06:34 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 16:06:34 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?11?9?, at ??11:00, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 > Transfers) (Erik Bais) > 2. Re: 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) > (Andy Davidson) > 3. Re: 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) > (Andy Davidson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0100 > From: "Erik Bais" > Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy > Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) > To: > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Hi, > > This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list > but not on the Address Policy WG list. > > There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 > Transfers. > >> You can find the full proposal at: > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt > Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 > Aan: policy-announce at ripe.net > CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 > Transfers) > > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "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/2014-12 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:58:40 +0000 > From: Andy Davidson > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow > IPv6 Transfers) > To: > Message-ID: <20141109095830.GA31177 at chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 01:43:29PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 >> [... Allow IPv6 Transfer ...] >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 28 November 2014. > > Support. > > -a > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:05:49 +0000 > From: Andy Davidson > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS > Number Transfers) > To: > Message-ID: <20141109100549.GB31177 at chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:56:48PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-13 >> [... Allow AS Number Transfers ...] >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> before 28 November 2014. > > Support the end result but don't support text as it stands. > > - Would prefer not to see it possible to transfer ASN on a temporary > basis - if an organisation needs temporary resources these are > available from the RIPE NCC. > > - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and > concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with > the NCC. > > -a > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > ************************************************* From apwg at c4inet.net Sun Nov 9 18:35:47 2014 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 17:35:47 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <20141109173547.GA74064@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:06:34PM +0000, Lu wrote: >Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we >need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 >as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. It's a fair point, actually. IPv6 should no longer be treated as "special". Also, while there are "language-hygiene" efforts underway, should "address-policy" not be renamed to "resource-policy"? It would make clearer that it is no longer about just IP addresses (if it ever was). rgds, Sascha Luck From gert at space.net Sun Nov 9 19:32:47 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 19:32:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> Message-ID: <20141109183247.GN31092@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 10:05:49AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote: > - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and > concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with > the NCC. I assume that the underlying intention is to have an identical transfer policies (wherever it applies) for IPv4, IPv6 and AS numbers, so if all the individual proposals reach consensus, it will be easy (easier, at least) to merge them into a unified transfer policy document, which is then referenced from the IPv4, IPv6 and AS number policies. Gert Doering -- no hats -- 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Mon Nov 10 09:43:36 2014 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian Feurdean) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:43:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote: > There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 > Transfers. > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ? From tore at fud.no Mon Nov 10 10:44:06 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:44:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> * Andy Davidson > > - Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and > > concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with > > the NCC. The non-approved transfer stat is a pre-2013-03 relic, and it has no useful purpose today that I can see. From the rationale in 2012-05: ?Recording when address transfers were denied on the basis of needs evaluation (without identifying the block or the proposed recipient) is also important, because it facilitates greater awareness of the impact of RIPE NCC?s application of needs assessment policies on the transfer market.? Since the RIPE NCC won't deny any transfer on the basis of needs evaluation p.t., this is dead policy. 2014-05 might change that, though. I can understand that Erik put it in there though, since the first phase of his plan is to carbon-copy the IPv4 transfer policy, which already has consensus so it's probably the path of least resistance. When he gets to the second phase, to clean up and unify the now redundant and fragmented transfer policies, we could ask him to take it out. * Sascha Luck > I don't understand this recent obsession with publishing lists of > all transactions and there is no rationale given in the proposal > for this either. I could live with anonymised lists though for > both approved and disapproved transfers. The RIPE NCC has published information about who receives and holds resoures since its inception. I think transfers should be out in the open, as well. There has been some worry of speculation and hoarding post IPv4 depletion, with the transfer list out in the open we can all take a look to check if this seems to be happening, and if so, if the extent of the practise justifies further policy developement. Another issue that was raised by RS at RIPE69 was the practise of registering short-lived LIRs for the purpose of obtaining and transferring /22s. The transfer list gives us further insight into this practise. Also, one could imagine that having this information out in the open would provide some level of deterrant against organisations who whould otherwise do stuff against the spirit of the policy. Note that even if 2012-05 was rescinded, transfers would still be publicly available information. You can just compare yesterdays database export or alloclist.txt with today's, and see what changed. But it's a more cumbersome process though. Tore From andy at nosignal.org Mon Nov 10 11:17:17 2014 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:17:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <8A0FA9CC-7FC4-4447-BDF7-BB6451225E37@nosignal.org> Hi Sascha and Tore have cleared up my concerns about the wording, I revise my message to one of full support for 2014-13 as the wording stands. Let?s clean up the strange reporting requirement later. Andy From apwg at c4inet.net Mon Nov 10 11:21:19 2014 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:19 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <20141110102119.GA76585@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:44:06AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: >resoures since its inception. I think transfers should be out in the >open, as well. There has been some worry of speculation and hoarding >post IPv4 depletion, with the transfer list out in the open we can all >take a look to check if this seems to be happening, and if so, if the >extent of the practise justifies further policy developement. Another I don't see why LIRs must be accountable to the mob rather than the NCC whom I they have a contract with. I can see this leading to endless harassment by people who haven't read or understood the policies, want to damage competitors or are simply trolls. What safeguards, if any, do you propose to prevent this? >Note that even if 2012-05 was rescinded, transfers would still be >publicly available information. You can just compare yesterdays database >export or alloclist.txt with today's, and see what changed. But it's >a more cumbersome process though. Sure. Let whomever wants this info do the work. rgds, Sascha Luck From tore at fud.no Mon Nov 10 11:42:39 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:42:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141110102119.GA76585@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> <20141110102119.GA76585@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20141110114239.0e8e667b@envy.fud.no> * Sascha Luck [ml] > I don't see why LIRs must be accountable to the mob rather > than the NCC whom I they have a contract with. I can see this > leading to endless harassment by people who haven't read or > understood the policies, want to damage competitors or are simply > trolls. > What safeguards, if any, do you propose to prevent this? None. I think that having the LIRs be accountable to the community in a transparent fashion is much a better alternative than shrouding everything in secrecy. There might be uninformed people or trolls crying foul based on public information, but with everything out in the open, the more informed amongst us is in a much better position to point out that there is no foul (assuming there is none). As an aside, I was puzzled to hear Andrea (iirc) say at the mic that the identity of the Russian organisation that held 100 ASNs was confidential. That information should be right there out in the open in the RIPE database, should it not? How could it possibly be confidential? Tore From apwg at c4inet.net Mon Nov 10 11:56:39 2014 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:56:39 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-13 New Policy Proposal (Allow AS Number Transfers) In-Reply-To: <20141110114239.0e8e667b@envy.fud.no> References: <4834b55b3a6c4f3d9c245049124ad4ed@AM1FFO11FD046.protection.gbl> <20141109100549.GB31177@chilli.default.andyd.uk0.bigv.io> <20141109140227.GG58817@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20141110104406.3527d33b@envy.fud.no> <20141110102119.GA76585@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20141110114239.0e8e667b@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <20141110105639.GB76585@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42:39AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: >> What safeguards, if any, do you propose to prevent this? > >None. I think that having the LIRs be accountable to the community in a >transparent fashion is much a better alternative than shrouding >everything in secrecy. There might be uninformed people or trolls >crying foul based on public information, but with everything out in the >open, the more informed amongst us is in a much better position to >point out that there is no foul (assuming there is none). Well then, please publish all your shopping receipts, in order for the community to offer you helpful advice on whether you need all this stuff and what you could use instead. Seriously though, this I cannot agree with. If you throw enough shit, some of it will stick, whether you've done anything wrong or not. So, while I support the goal of the policy, I'll oppose it as long as this requirement is in there. >As an aside, I was puzzled to hear Andrea (iirc) say at the mic that >the identity of the Russian organisation that held 100 ASNs was >confidential. That information should be right there out in the open in >the RIPE database, should it not? How could it possibly be confidential? I'm sure with some effort this information could be extracted from the ripedb. I agree, though, that the collated information should be confidential and I'm glad to hear that the NCC treats it as such. rgds, Sascha Luck From ebais at a2b-internet.com Mon Nov 10 15:28:25 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:28:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Radu, Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case in order to keep this discussion clean. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Radu-Adrian Feurdean [mailto:ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net] Verzonden: maandag 10 november 2014 9:44 Aan: Erik Bais; ipv6-wg at ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote: > There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 > Transfers. > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ? From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Nov 11 15:03:38 2014 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy In-Reply-To: <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote: > Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? > > That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and > not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier to read and understand. Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases of LIR consolidation. Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably go live before we sort out this issue). > No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case > in order to keep this discussion clean. Done :) -- Radu From ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm Wed Nov 12 08:32:02 2014 From: ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Hello, On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: > Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need > two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal > IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this proposal. -- +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Wed Nov 12 10:26:07 2014 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: > Hello, > > On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list > for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support > this proposal. > Hi, I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a "resource-policy" WG. I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. Regards, Wilhelm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lir at elisa.fi Wed Nov 12 11:28:56 2014 From: lir at elisa.fi (lir at elisa.fi) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:28:56 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: > > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm > Boeddinghaus > Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26 > To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing > lists] > > ? > > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: > > Hello, > > On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: > > Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we > need > two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as > normal > IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only > about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In > essence, I support this proposal. > > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would > be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals > with how we give IP? adresses to members and non members, it is about > contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just > have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look > into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot > of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning > from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a > "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please > let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need > that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as > we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm > > > Hi all, I fully agree with Wilhelm. Rgds, Ray From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 12 11:53:12 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:53:12 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: On 12 Nov 2014, at 07:32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. If that was true, it would mean the IPv6 WG should be shut down because it had nothing to do. Please present the evidence for your claim and for killing the IPv6 WG. From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 12 11:57:12 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:57:12 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: <84C41506-F403-4763-A284-1E9AD9607076@rfc1035.com> On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:26, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Nov 12 12:20:31 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:20:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Thanks guys for joining my idea, the reason why I asked in the first place is why don't we have a equal IPv4 working group then, if address technical issue alone worth for a wg, then for sure we are facing more issue with v4 than v6( in which practically still quite low usage for today's internet). And, what IPv6 wg has to do IPv6 transfer policy--it is not technical thing I believe. That said, I don't want to kill IPv6 wg, but just hoping v6 will have the normal treatment just like what we do with v4. Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > On 2014?11?12?, at ??11:00, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy > (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) > 2. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Aleksi Suhonen) > 3. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) > 4. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (lir at elisa.fi) > 5. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > 6. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 > From: "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 > address policy > To: Erik Bais , ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680 at webmail.messagingengine.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote: >> >> Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? >> >> That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and >> not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. > > My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It > lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago > (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else > IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play > administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - > which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering > live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like > in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when > more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). > > Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF > that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. > Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). > Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier > to read and understand. > > Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much > relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases > of LIR consolidation. > Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably > go live before we sort out this issue). > >> No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case >> in order to keep this discussion clean. > > Done :) > > -- > Radu > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:32:02 +0200 > From: Aleksi Suhonen > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <54630CF2.10203 at ssd.axu.tm> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hello, > >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support this > proposal. > > -- > +358 44 9756548 / http://www.trex.fi/ > Aleksi Suhonen / TREX Regional Exchanges Oy > > You say "potato", I say "closest-exit." > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:26:07 +0100 > From: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: Aleksi Suhonen , > "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <546327AF.9020503 at boeddinghaus.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >>> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. >> > Hi, > > I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" > would be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" > WG deals with how we give IP adresses to members and non members, it is > about contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. > > In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, > just have a look at the presentation Jen Linkovagave in London. Or have > a look into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is > still a lot of research going on. And many organisations just start with > IPv6. Learning from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be > addressed in a "resource-policy" WG. > > I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the > policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141112/a5b75db1/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:28:56 +0200 (EET) > From: lir at elisa.fi > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> >> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net >> [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wilhelm >> Boeddinghaus >> Sent: 12. marraskuuta 2014 11:26 >> To: Aleksi Suhonen; address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing >> lists] >> >> ? >> >> Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >> >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we >> need >> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as >> normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only >> about address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate >> mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In >> essence, I support this proposal. >> >> Hi, >> >> I do not support this proposal. Renaming the WG to "resource-policy" would >> be ok, but this is not the important point. The "address-policy" WG deals >> with how we give IP? adresses to members and non members, it is about >> contracts and fair distribution of resources in a fairly large region. >> >> In the IPv6 working group we deal with the technical aspects of IPv6, just >> have a look at the presentation Jen Linkova gave in London. Or have a look >> into the drafts of the IPv6 working groups at the IETF. There is still a lot >> of research going on. And many organisations just start with IPv6. Learning >> from others is very valuable. These aspects would not be addressed in a >> "resource-policy" WG. >> >> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the >> policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please >> let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need >> that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as >> we have with IPv4 today. >> >> Regards, >> >> Wilhelm >> >> >> > Hi all, > > I fully agree with Wilhelm. > > Rgds, > > Ray > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:53:12 +0000 > From: Jim Reid > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: Aleksi Suhonen > Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 12 Nov 2014, at 07:32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: >> >> In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > > If that was true, it would mean the IPv6 WG should be shut down because it had nothing to do. > > Please present the evidence for your claim and for killing the IPv6 WG. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:57:12 +0000 > From: Jim Reid > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: Wilhelm Boeddinghaus > Cc: Aleksi Suhonen , RIPE Address Policy WG > > Message-ID: <84C41506-F403-4763-A284-1E9AD9607076 at rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > >> On 12 Nov 2014, at 09:26, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: >> >> I aggree that IPv6 addresses are just normal addresses, this is why the policies dealing with IPv6 are made in the "address-policy" WG. But please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. > > +1 > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 14 > ************************************************* From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 12 12:29:47 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:29:47 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu wrote: > Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? No. > So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Wed Nov 12 12:38:07 2014 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:38:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> References: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <5463469F.4000102@boeddinghaus.de> Am 12.11.2014 um 12:29 schrieb Jim Reid: > On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu wrote: > >> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? > No. > >> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. > > I support Jim Reid. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Nov 12 12:39:42 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:39:42 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> References: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless". > On 2014?11?12?, at ??11:29, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu wrote: >> >> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? > > No. > >> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. > > RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. > From gert at space.net Wed Nov 12 12:44:01 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:44:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: References: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20141112114401.GX31092@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:39:42AM +0000, Lu wrote: > "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless". Whatever it is, the future of the IPv6 working group MUST NOT be discussed on the address policy WG mailing list. Please stop this thread *here* - if you feel the IPv6 WG should be renamed or closed or joined with the plenary, discuss it over there. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Wed Nov 12 12:50:40 2014 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:50:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: References: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <54634990.4010407@boeddinghaus.de> Am 12.11.2014 um 12:39 schrieb Lu: > "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless". > > > >> On 2014?11?12?, at ??11:29, Jim Reid wrote: >> >>> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu wrote: >>> >>> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? >> No. >> >>> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. >> RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. >> Hi Lu, I think that names are not that important, content is more important. Would you please send a proposal to the lists (IPv6, Address Policy, routing, anti abuse and connect). Please include your ideas for new names, new charters and the new structure of the working groups. Do not forget the routing WG, the connect WG and the anti abuse WG, because they also deal with IPv4 and IPv6 (routing, peering, IP based blacklists, etc.). Would you like to present the new structure of WGs in Amsterdam next May in the plenary? This would then start the official bottom up process. And then "we", this includes you, can discuss this based on your ideas and proposals. Regards, Wilhelm From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Nov 12 13:01:13 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:01:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming In-Reply-To: <54634990.4010407@boeddinghaus.de> References: <99294E6D-2EDB-4014-A6A6-13DFE8F885DD@rfc1035.com> <54634990.4010407@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: <9AFD25B3-67CC-4F87-AE44-D761E68E27DA@anytimechinese.com> Wilhelm, I don't believe you have read what I was writing, I was simply suggest a name change to fairly treat v6 as v4, not a new structure of all working group, please do not extend my wording for me, thanks. And the chair is right, this discussion should not happen here in this mailing list as it has nothing to do with address policy. So I will move off the topic here, this is my last reply on this topic in this mailing list. > On 2014?11?12?, at ??11:50, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > >> Am 12.11.2014 um 12:39 schrieb Lu: >> "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless". >> >> >> >>>> On 2014?11?12?, at ??11:29, Jim Reid wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12 Nov 2014, at 11:20, Lu wrote: >>>> >>>> Should we re-name v6 group to address-technical in which different from address-policy? >>> No. >>> >>>> So one day we don't need a v7 group, and people with technical issue with v4 can discuss there as well. >>> RIPE can create a WG for IPv7 or whatever if and when the need arises. It can also kill a WG in the same way. [Provided Bijal is in the room. :-)] That's how we do things at RIPE. > Hi Lu, > > I think that names are not that important, content is more important. Would you please send a proposal to the lists (IPv6, Address Policy, routing, anti abuse and connect). Please include your ideas for new names, new charters and the new structure of the working groups. Do not forget the routing WG, the connect WG and the anti abuse WG, because they also deal with IPv4 and IPv6 (routing, peering, IP based blacklists, etc.). > > Would you like to present the new structure of WGs in Amsterdam next May in the plenary? This would then start the official bottom up process. And then "we", this includes you, can discuss this based on your ideas and proposals. > > Regards, > > Wilhelm > From furry13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 20:21:30 2014 From: furry13 at gmail.com (Jen Linkova) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:21:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing? Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'. >the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment. > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. Exactly. >In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry From zsako at iszt.hu Thu Nov 13 10:31:33 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:31:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). Janos 2014.11.12. 20:21 keltez?ssel, Jen Linkova ?rta: > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > list untouched. From hph at oslo.net Thu Nov 13 11:15:05 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:15:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <546484A9.7030705@oslo.net> On 09.11.14, 17.06, Lu wrote: > Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. You may want to have a look at the charter for the two working-groups, they were as I remember carefully crafted some years back - to make sure there is no overlap. As Address-policy is normally two time-slots and Ipv6 1-2 timeslots a combined working-group would be pretty large. One reason to treat Ipv6 different than Ip4 is that the RIPE community still need to focus on promoting an d deployment of Ipv6 . a challenge we do not have with Ipv4:-) But this is of-course up to the Workinggroups... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 IPv6 is the next generation Internet Protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing and fixing operational issues The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and combine efforts. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the management and registration of Internet addresses and routing identifiers (currently IPv4, IPv6 and ASN) by the RIPE NCC and the LIRs within the RIPE NCC Service Region. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe participate and contribute to the working group. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hph at oslo.net Thu Nov 13 11:16:51 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <54648513.1020201@oslo.net> On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the IPv6 wg. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net From bs at stepladder-it.com Thu Nov 13 11:33:47 2014 From: bs at stepladder-it.com (Benedikt Stockebrand) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: (Jen Linkova's message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:21:30 +0100") References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Hi folks, Jen Linkova writes: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > [...] >>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for >> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > [...] > There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to > address policy. I fully agree with Jen here. If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this point? > Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a > mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. > [...] I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at hand. In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4. > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, Thank you, Jen! As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the address policy list. > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > list untouched. So do I. \begin{wg-chair-mode} To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step approach: - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger with the address policy WG list. - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) discussions moving there. I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement and assume the question settled. \end{wg-chair-mode} Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Nov 13 12:29:38 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:29:38 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I think some people are off topic here, all I said was we should not treat v4 and v6 differently, that's it. If there are people like to treat two protocols differently, you are free to express your view. But anyway, this is really not a topic for this mailing list anyway, should we stop here?(if anyone interested we can start at IPv6 wg there) On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Hans Petter Holen) > 2. Re: [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] > (Benedikt Stockebrand) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:16:51 +0100 > From: Hans Petter Holen > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy > mailing lists] > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <54648513.1020201 at oslo.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 12.11.14, 08.32, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > > address policy. > According to the charter - address policy is outside the charter of the > IPv6 wg. > > See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > > -- > Hans Petter Holen > Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 > From: Benedikt Stockebrand > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ipv6-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address > policy mailing lists] > To: Jen Linkova > Cc: Aleksi Suhonen , > "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" , > "ipv6-wg at ripe.net IPv6" > Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf at stepladder-it.com> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Hi folks, > > Jen Linkova writes: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen > wrote: > > [...] > >>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > >> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > > [...] > > There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to > > address policy. > > I fully agree with Jen here. > > If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and > video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I > don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. > > @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate > mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this > point? > > > Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a > > mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. > > [...] > > I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still > try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at > hand. > > In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list > obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a > decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. > > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something > similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at > the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4. > > > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, > > Thank you, Jen! > > As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't > generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are > others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the > address policy list. > > > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > > list untouched. > > So do I. > > \begin{wg-chair-mode} > To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step > approach: > > - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt > accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger > with the address policy WG list. > > - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the > address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) > discussions moving there. > > I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as > far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the > IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement > and assume the question settled. > \end{wg-chair-mode} > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > > -- > Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting > Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ > > Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects > > BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 17 > ************************************************* > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Thu Nov 13 13:44:02 2014 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:44:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> Message-ID: <20141113124402.GE12394@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: > I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). +1 Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm Tue Nov 18 08:39:44 2014 From: ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:39:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 timer update? Message-ID: <546AF7C0.3030704@ssd.axu.tm> Hello all, We recently modified the 2014-04 proposal to drop any and all IPv6 requirements from the last IPv4 assignment policy. Please indicate your support or lack there of for 2014-04 now. Also, could the chairs publicly declare which timer the 2014-04 proposal is on now and how much time is left before it advances? Yours sincerely, -- Aleksi Suhonen / You say "hot potato", I say "closest-exit." From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Nov 18 11:43:07 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:43:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 timer update? In-Reply-To: <546AF7C0.3030704@ssd.axu.tm> References: <546AF7C0.3030704@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <005601d0031c$70b01560$52104020$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Aleksi, I haven't seen an updated / new version of the policy text of 2014-04. Did you already forwarded that to pdo at ripe.net (Marco) and the AP-WG-chairs (Gert and Sander) ? Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Aleksi Suhonen Verzonden: dinsdag 18 november 2014 8:40 Aan: address-policy Working Group Onderwerp: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 timer update? Hello all, We recently modified the 2014-04 proposal to drop any and all IPv6 requirements from the last IPv4 assignment policy. Please indicate your support or lack there of for 2014-04 now. Also, could the chairs publicly declare which timer the 2014-04 proposal is on now and how much time is left before it advances? Yours sincerely, -- Aleksi Suhonen / You say "hot potato", I say "closest-exit." From gert at space.net Tue Nov 18 12:01:42 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:01:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 timer update? In-Reply-To: <546AF7C0.3030704@ssd.axu.tm> References: <546AF7C0.3030704@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <20141118110142.GK28745@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:39:44AM +0200, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > We recently modified the 2014-04 proposal to drop any and all IPv6 > requirements from the last IPv4 assignment policy. Please indicate your > support or lack there of for 2014-04 now. > > Also, could the chairs publicly declare which timer the 2014-04 proposal > is on now and how much time is left before it advances? Marco will send the announcement as soon as the impact analysis is done and the new review phase starts. Patience, please :-) - there was a very work-heavy RIPE meeting recently. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Nov 18 12:14:10 2014 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:14:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <2328A503-5314-416A-B86D-B3E05ED25BDC@steffann.nl> References: <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <20141013174342.GE31092@Space.Net> <543E3B68.9040300@tvt-datos.es> <2328A503-5314-416A-B86D-B3E05ED25BDC@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <546B2A02.3010103@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > >>Then lets change the text of the policy for recieving the last /22. >> >>Point 5.1, rule 4: >> >>From: >>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC. >> >>To: >>Allocations will only be made to LIRs if the have already received and IPv6 PI or PA from another LIR, RIPE NCC or other RIR. > > > That is still something that won't push real deployment, only administrative work... Indeed. Just look at Section D of the impact anlysis, ref. the company structure comment(s). In general I can live with the current proposal, but I am worried about the formal requirement of "in a Registry mirrored by the RIPE NCC", because it would invalidate the policy in case something happens to the mirroring. But be it, in the interest of PI holders which already *have* implemented IPv6... In general, I would be much more in favour of a version of the proposal which removes the IPV6 holdership or usage *completely*. For all the reasons that have been pointed out already by others. (Thanks for that!). Wilfried > > A different idea: if we want people requesting IPv4 space to be aware of IPv6 then why not just make it a requirement that the requester declares that they are aware that IPv4 is a scarce and limited resource and that for further scalability of the internet IPv6 deployment is required. It would probably have the same impact on real IPv6 deployment without any window dressing. > > And it would avoid requiring people to request resources that they have no intention of using at that point in time. IPv6 resources are easy to get: when they decide to deploy IPv6 it is easy for them to get the necessary resources at that point. And they will probably also know better what to request. I wonder how many LIRs have just requested an IPv6 /32 without thinking because they only needed to go through the motions to get an IPv4 /22. > > Cheers, > Sander > > From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Nov 18 12:25:48 2014 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:25:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> [ I am aware of the off-topic-ness, and belated on top, but... ] Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: [....] > Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY > (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever network. ... even if stated again and again, it simply is not true. Please stop these claims, they may be even more detrimental to IPv6 deployment, if read by some people not having "real data" and/or first-hand experience. > If we want to migrate from v4 to v6, some drastic changes should be > made. One of them, requiring the v6 to be publicly visible if you want > to have the last /22. > > That way we ensure that LIR/Network will have, 'at least', ipv6 working > on the router. No, just a config line in some (potentially unrelated) box announcing the prefix from a random AS#. > Its sad we cant check deeper if clients/servers/etc is having v6 > conectivity God havens, I am grateful that you/we can't. It is nobody's business to try to poke around. > but at least we can check if v6 is public in bgp. As it has been pointed out already, IPv6 addressing is a *technology* that can be used in different environments. The capital "i" Internet is one of them. And even there, not *all* announcements that are made somewhere by a BGP speaker can be seen everywhere in the DFZ (or by the RIPE NCC's RIS). Wilfried. >>> How? Making the policy not only "to have" the v6 alloc, I'll require >>> also having it with route6 and published in BGP. RIPEstat is a good >>> tool to check if the v6 is publicly visible. >> >> >> IP addresses allocated/assigned do not have to be routed on 'the >> global internet' (for whatever value of 'global internet' you pick). >> Routing requirements were explicitly removed from the IPv6 policy with >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06. > > > So please, tell me why someone will require/request public ip space if > is not to be publicly routed on "the global internet". > And that is a real question since I saw that "IP addresses > allocated/assigned do not have to be routed on 'the global internet" > several times and cant understand why. > > Cheers, From sander at steffann.nl Tue Nov 18 12:32:02 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:32:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <546B2A02.3010103@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <20141013174342.GE31092@Space.Net> <543E3B68.9040300@tvt-datos.es> <2328A503-5314-416A-B86D-B3E05ED25BDC@steffann.nl> <546B2A02.3010103@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hello Wilfried, > In general, I would be much more in favour of a version of the proposal which removes > the IPV6 holdership or usage *completely*. For all the reasons that have been pointed > out already by others. (Thanks for that!). I fully agree. I will work with the authors and help them to update the proposal text. Cheers, Sander PS: yes, this means that I am involved in this policy proposal and I will abstain on all WG-chair related duties about this proposal as I have now clearly given up my neutrality on this :) Gert has agreed to decide on this proposal without my input. From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 08:49:27 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:49:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2014-08_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Lang?= =?utf-8?q?uage_Clarification_in_=E2=80=9CContractual_Requirements_?= =?utf-8?q?for_Provider_Independent_Resource_Holders_in_the_RIPE_NC?= =?utf-8?q?C_Service_Region=E2=80=9D=29?= In-Reply-To: <54491707.c961b40a.7e3f.ffffd94fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <54491707.c961b40a.7e3f.ffffd94fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now available > for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. late but support from me -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 08:53:04 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:53:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2014-07_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Lang?= =?utf-8?q?uage_Clarification_in_=E2=80=9CIPv4_Address_Allocation_a?= =?utf-8?q?nd_Assignment_Policies_for_the_RIPE_NCC_Service_Region?= =?utf-8?b?4oCdKQ==?= In-Reply-To: <54491707.231db50a.6d43.ffffbb38SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <54491707.231db50a.6d43.ffffbb38SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "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/2014-07 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. the changes make sense as far as I can see, supported from me. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 08:58:29 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:58:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2014-10_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Lang?= =?utf-8?q?uage_Clarification_in_=E2=80=9CIPv6_Addresses_for_Intern?= =?utf-8?q?et_Root_Servers_In_The_RIPE_Region=E2=80=9D=29?= In-Reply-To: <54491707.a70eb40a.0c0f.050bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <54491707.a70eb40a.0c0f.050bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Addresses for Internet > Root Servers In The RIPE Region" is now available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-10 > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 21 November 2014. Unsure about those changes, can this cause issues similar to what Nick pointed out regard IX space? http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2014-October/009254.html -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From ggiannou at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 09:26:46 2014 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:26:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2014-08_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Lang?= =?utf-8?q?uage_Clarification_in_=E2=80=9CContractual_Requirements_?= =?utf-8?q?for_Provider_Independent_Resource_Holders_in_the_RIPE_NC?= =?utf-8?q?C_Service_Region=E2=80=9D=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <54491707.c961b40a.7e3f.ffffd94fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, I support it too George On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider > > Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region" is now > available > > for discussion. > > > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08 > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > before 21 November 2014. > > late but support from me > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggiannou at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 09:27:19 2014 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:27:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2014-07_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Lang?= =?utf-8?q?uage_Clarification_in_=E2=80=9CIPv4_Address_Allocation_a?= =?utf-8?q?nd_Assignment_Policies_for_the_RIPE_NCC_Service_Region?= =?utf-8?b?4oCdKQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: <54491707.231db50a.6d43.ffffbb38SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Hi, I support it too George On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document "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/2014-07 > > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > > before 21 November 2014. > > the changes make sense as far as I can see, supported from me. > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saeed at ipm.ir Sat Nov 22 10:19:22 2014 From: saeed at ipm.ir (Saeed Khademi) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:49:22 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI Message-ID: Dear members, During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to our instructor ) there are some organizations having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request will not be processed by hostmaster. and here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assignments/request-an-as-number it is clearly mentioned that ?Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned? Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with ASN, isn?t it a wrong doing? Kind Regards, Saeed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 10:52:06 2014 From: sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com (Shahab Vahabzadeh) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:22:06 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Saeed, Thanks for this, But is there any to control this? In country like Iran in which you can only peer with your upstream. What they can do? Thanks On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Saeed Khademi wrote: > Dear members, > > During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to > our instructor ) there are some organizations > having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. > > According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in > AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) > which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request > will not be processed by hostmaster. > and here: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assignments/request-an-as-number > it is clearly mentioned that "Current guidelines require a network to be > multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned" > > Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with > ASN, isn't it a wrong doing? > > Kind Regards, > Saeed. > > -- Regards, Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator Cell Phone: +1 (415) 871 0742 PGP Key Fingerprint = 1C43 988E 01A8 4D95 B662 9118 CD94 9F10 4DF4 6163 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From R.mahmoudi at mobinnet.net Sat Nov 22 11:04:40 2014 From: R.mahmoudi at mobinnet.net (Reza Mahmoudi) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:04:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9BF4935858C6234189573116954E7F6E4723E0A7@Mobinnetex01.mobinnet.net> Hi To add a comment, the upstream you mentioned here, has at least 2 different ASN?s. In addition, Multihome doesn?t necessarily mean peering with the sole upstream but you can peer with others? Cheers, Reza From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shahab Vahabzadeh Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:22 PM To: Saeed Khademi Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI Dear Saeed, Thanks for this, But is there any to control this? In country like Iran in which you can only peer with your upstream. What they can do? Thanks On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Saeed Khademi > wrote: Dear members, During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to our instructor ) there are some organizations having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request will not be processed by hostmaster. and here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assignments/request-an-as-number it is clearly mentioned that ?Current guidelines require a network to be multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned? Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with ASN, isn?t it a wrong doing? Kind Regards, Saeed. -- Regards, Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator Cell Phone: +1 (415) 871 0742 PGP Key Fingerprint = 1C43 988E 01A8 4D95 B662 9118 CD94 9F10 4DF4 6163 -- This email was Virus checked by Juniper Security Gateway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 11:08:27 2014 From: sh.vahabzadeh at gmail.com (Shahab Vahabzadeh) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:38:27 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI In-Reply-To: <9BF4935858C6234189573116954E7F6E4723E0A7@Mobinnetex01.mobinnet.net> References: <9BF4935858C6234189573116954E7F6E4723E0A7@Mobinnetex01.mobinnet.net> Message-ID: Hi there, Yes I know, But they only peer with the ASN which you bought service from. You mean ISPs must buy two kind of service from provider (this upstream) to be multi-home or convince the peer with both of ASNs? Thanks On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Reza Mahmoudi wrote: > Hi > > > > To add a comment, the upstream you mentioned here, has at least 2 > different ASN's. In addition, Multihome doesn't necessarily mean peering > with the sole upstream but you can peer with others... > > > > Cheers, > > Reza > > > > *From:* address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Shahab Vahabzadeh > *Sent:* Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:22 PM > *To:* Saeed Khademi > *Cc:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI > > > > Dear Saeed, > > Thanks for this, But is there any to control this? In country like Iran in > which you can only peer with your upstream. > > What they can do? > > Thanks > > > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Saeed Khademi wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > During previous RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, I noticed that ( according to > our instructor ) there are some organizations > > having AS number while they do not have a multihome network. > > > > According policy it is a mandatory requirement for having an ASN. Even in > AS request form there is a mandatory field ( peers ) > > which requestor has to declare at least 2 peers, otherwise the request > will not be processed by hostmaster. > > and here: > > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assignments/request-an-as-number > > it is clearly mentioned that "Current guidelines require a network to be > multi-homed, and have a unique routing policy for an ASN to be assigned" > > > > Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with > ASN, isn't it a wrong doing? > > > > Kind Regards, > > Saeed. > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator > > Cell Phone: +1 (415) 871 0742 > PGP Key Fingerprint = 1C43 988E 01A8 4D95 B662 9118 CD94 9F10 4DF4 6163 > > > > -- > > This email was Virus checked by Juniper Security Gateway. > > -- Regards, Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator Cell Phone: +1 (415) 871 0742 PGP Key Fingerprint = 1C43 988E 01A8 4D95 B662 9118 CD94 9F10 4DF4 6163 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Sat Nov 22 11:16:11 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:16:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Just FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141122101611.GD28745@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:49:22PM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote: > Now if it is really true that there are single-home organizations with ASN, isn???t it a wrong doing? "You can only see a single upstream" doesn't mean the AS does not have a unique routing policy - it could have a local peering with some other local ISP, which you just won't see in the global table. 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Mon Nov 24 03:37:25 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:37:25 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: > Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >> Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY >> (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever >> network. > ... even if stated again and again, it simply is not true. Please stop > these claims, they may be even more detrimental to IPv6 deployment, if > read by some people not having "real data" and/or first-hand > experience. perhaps a pointer to these real data would make your point randy From dez at otenet.gr Mon Nov 24 15:23:08 2014 From: dez at otenet.gr (Yannis Nikolopoulos) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:23:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: <54733F4C.2010801@otenet.gr> hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm From ispyroul at ripe.net Tue Nov 25 12:04:34 2014 From: ispyroul at ripe.net (Ioanna Spyroulia) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:04:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal Implemented: 2014-02, "Allow PI transfer" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented policy proposal 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer?. In accordance with the new policy, End Users can transfer complete or partial blocks of Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 address space that were previously assigned to them by the RIPE NCC. To initiate a PI transfer, the sponsoring LIR of either the transferring or receiving End User should open a ticket with the RIPE NCC by sending an email to lir-help at ripe.net. The procedure describing the requirements for PI transfers can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/transfer-of-assigned-pi-space The list of all PI assignments transferred under this policy can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-623 Kind regards, Ioanna Spyroulia RIPE NCC Registration Services -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Fri Nov 28 11:07:10 2014 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:07:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <5478494E.6050806@cc.univie.ac.at> On 2014-11-24 03:37, Randy Bush wrote: >> Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >>> Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY >>> (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever >>> network. >> ... even if stated again and again, it simply is not true. Please stop >> these claims, they may be even more detrimental to IPv6 deployment, if >> read by some people not having "real data" and/or first-hand >> experience. > > perhaps a pointer to these real data would make your point Take a look at e.g. http://www.vix.at/vix_participants.html?&no_cache=1&L=1, the column "IPv6 Routeserver activated". I presume it wouldn't be useful to have that configured, unless there is deployment in these ASNs. Wilfried > randy > From randy at psg.com Fri Nov 28 11:26:22 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:26:22 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: <5478494E.6050806@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <5478494E.6050806@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: >>> Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >>>> Easy. The current IPv6 deploy makes me cry like a little girl. NOBODY >>>> (as percentage) is deploying it in their customer/backone/whatever >>>> network. >>> ... even if stated again and again, it simply is not true. Please stop >>> these claims, they may be even more detrimental to IPv6 deployment, if >>> read by some people not having "real data" and/or first-hand >>> experience. >> perhaps a pointer to these real data would make your point > Take a look at > e.g. http://www.vix.at/vix_participants.html?&no_cache=1&L=1, the > column "IPv6 Routeserver activated". > > I presume it wouldn't be useful to have that configured, unless there > is deployment in these ASNs. with all due respect, wilfred. iij has had a backbone configiured for ipv6 since 1997. but that is anecdote not data. randy From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Nov 28 12:16:04 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:16:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points") Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The proposal 2014-09, "Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points"" has been withdrawn. It is now archived and can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-09 Reason for withdrawal: During the discussion phase there was feedback that IPv6 assignments for IXPs should be able to be used for other purposes besides a peering LAN. The proposer therefore believes that the current term "should" reflects the RIPE community???s understanding of this policy, and so decided withdraw the proposal. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Fri Nov 28 14:03:51 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:03:51 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-09 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E2AB396-7F09-424A-8D9C-365BD4EB7233@steffann.nl> Hello WG, Op 28 nov. 2014, om 15:16 heeft Marco Schmidt het volgende geschreven: > The proposal 2014-09, "Language Clarification in "IPv6 Address > Space Policy For Internet Exchange Points"" has been withdrawn. > > It is now archived and can be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-09 > > > Reason for withdrawal: > During the discussion phase there was feedback that IPv6 assignments > for IXPs should be able to be used for other purposes besides a peering LAN. > The proposer therefore believes that the current term "should" reflects > the RIPE community?s understanding of this policy, and so decided withdraw > the proposal. To be clear here: there was clearly no consensus for this "should" to "must" change. Therefore the RIPE NCC has been asked to withdraw the policy proposal and implement the policy as it is currently written, as "should". We are of course always open to new policy proposals to change this policy. We just felt that 2014-09 was not a way forward that would get consensus. Cheers, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From frettled at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 15:38:00 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:38:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) In-Reply-To: References: <20140731114101.2BC3D6087A@mobil.space.net> <20140825184753.GA15964@Space.Net> <53FB8A3D.9050403@inex.ie> <540D1D91.1060509@ssd.axu.tm> <540DC8BC.5090602@inex.ie> <54112C3A.1000501@ssd.axu.tm> <5411974E.7080009@inex.ie> <20140919113127.3590d567@fizzix> <5435BD43.6010104@inex.ie> <20141010192059.GB31092@Space.Net> <2F603004-9069-4D0A-B042-6B8AE2D04C3D@a2b-internet.com> <543B870D.2010609@tvt-datos.es> <543BF3C9.4090501@tvt-datos.es> <546B2CBC.20809@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <5478494E.6050806@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Take a look at > > e.g. http://www.vix.at/vix_participants.html?&no_cache=1&L=1, the > > column "IPv6 Routeserver activated". > > > > I presume it wouldn't be useful to have that configured, unless there > > is deployment in these ASNs. > > with all due respect, wilfred. iij has had a backbone configiured for > ipv6 since 1997. but that is anecdote not data. > > Yep, data is much more useful. http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: