From tore at fud.no Sat Dec 3 16:14:52 2016 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:14:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: References: <3A8594CB-DD61-4FB0-97A5-41F1390045A9@gmail.com> <559CA103-A7B4-449B-A8F6-B30CA92FBA66@consulintel.es> <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE61749EFC@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> Message-ID: <20161203161452.5d46dcbf@envy.e1.y.home> * Krengel Martin > I support the proposal, based on the same reasons outlined by Silvia, > and also the link for the "automatic synchronisation" +1 Tore From John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch Tue Dec 13 09:41:07 2016 From: John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch (John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:41:07 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFB6C7@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Dec 14 04:50:46 2016 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:50:46 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFB6C7@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> References: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFB6C7@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Message-ID: <74382709-7FF0-40C5-87A8-5CF680ED91A3@consulintel.es> Hi John, I think you?re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that ?any? subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the ?actual? initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this ?total? evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup ? but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Responder a: Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun Dec 18 17:19:10 2016 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:19:10 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: <0984826E-F2CF-424A-A069-6947F9CA5DB8@consulintel.es> References: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFB6C7@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> <0984826E-F2CF-424A-A069-6947F9CA5DB8@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <6A2C171E-5DA1-4DAC-8850-B3D37E946A38@consulintel.es> Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can?t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you?re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that ?any? subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the ?actual? initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this ?total? evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup ? but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Responder a: Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun Dec 18 17:54:32 2016 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:54:32 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Message-ID: Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio). So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can?t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no ?normative? issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let?s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch Mon Dec 19 13:49:18 2016 From: John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch (John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:49:18 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: <6A2C171E-5DA1-4DAC-8850-B3D37E946A38@consulintel.es> References: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFB6C7@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> <0984826E-F2CF-424A-A069-6947F9CA5DB8@consulintel.es> <6A2C171E-5DA1-4DAC-8850-B3D37E946A38@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DCFFC8A8@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Dear Jordi, many thanks for your e-mail and suggestion. For me your proposed text for section 5.2.1.b is good and clear. Kind regards, John -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Sonntag, 18. Dezember 2016 17:19 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, all, I want to provide an update on this, as we are working already in the new version for the PDP review phase. We have drafted this text: 5.2.1. b) Can justify new needs (which can?t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. We believe that this alternative text will cover all the possible situations. So, it will be nice to have your input, or alternative suggestions. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 22:50 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi John, I think you?re right. When we drafted this text, in our mind was that ?any? subsequent request is re-evaluated adding together, the existing allocation(s), with the new request vs actual/new needs. I feel that our understanding is that NCC will actually use the ?actual? initial allocation criteria (not the old policy text) for this ?total? evaluation. But certainly, it will be very helpful if we could clarify this point with their perspective. Otherwise, probably something such as the following text may work: 5.2.1. b. Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocationS), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED IN 5.1.2. WILL BE APPLIED TO THE COMBINED TOTAL EXPECTED ADDRESSING SPACE. (used uppercase for changed text) Probably needs some english tidyup ? but I think the idea is clearer now? Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Responder a: Fecha: martes, 13 de diciembre de 2016, 3:41 Para: Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, I have read the policy proposal 2016-05 "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" and I would like to say that I support the proposal. However, to me the phrase in 5.2.1 b "Can justify new needs (compared with the previous allocation)" is unclear. Perhaps the unclarity is desired or deliberate? At any rate I feel obliged to say that it is unclear to me. It could mean: i) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied only to the newly required space or ii) the rules (as described in section 5.1.2) are applied to the existing and the newly required address space together To me the correction of the "discriminatory situation" mentioned in the Summary would require that ii) is what is meant. My support is not dependent on where're i) or ii) is intended. But perhaps this perceived unclarity may need to be addressed at some stage. Kind regards and thanks to the RIPE-NCC for their much appreciated work. John Collins swissgov.ch -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Donnerstag, 24. November 2016 14:20 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 23 December 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Dec 20 16:03:22 2016 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:03:22 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17069e58b6ec4a0280ee2b6edf17710e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Dec 20 17:30:13 2016 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:30:13 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Message-ID: Hi Leo, I?ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. So yes, you?re right that we could split the question in two: 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you?re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg en nombre de Leo Vegoda Responder a: Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 Para: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es" , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...] > So what do you think about: > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > ISP/LIR): > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From gert at space.net Tue Dec 20 17:47:04 2016 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:47:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161220164704.GK48971@Space.Net> Hi, just a few bits of clarification... On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:30:13AM -0500, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I???ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. Well, the reason for HD ratio is that a fixed utilization rate was seen as "too unflexible to accomodate aggregation loss on multiple hierarchies", especially in large networks - where HD ratio requires FAR less than 75%, so that would be a large change towards a much more conservative(!) rule. > So yes, you???re right that we could split the question in two: > 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value instead? > 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? > > My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and causes confusion if you???re using something different than /56, as the actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. The "confusion" about /48 and /56 has been brought up a few times, and the NCC has made it clear that they consider "a single assigned /48" to be the equivalent of "256 /56s" for the purpose of evaluating HD ratio. Nothing really "complex" or "confusing" here - you count your /56s, you look up the HD value that applies to your network size, and then you have a clear "ratio reached / not reached" answer. 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From farmer at umn.edu Tue Dec 20 19:05:15 2016 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:05:15 -0600 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While I agree with you about the complexity of HD-Ratio, I would not recommend you simply replace HD-Ratio with ARIN's 75% threshold using RIPE's current IPv6 policy model. In 2010 and 2011 the ARIN Policy Community did a complete rethink and realignment of our model for IPv6 allocations and assignments. These were policies ARIN-2010-4, ARIN-2010-8, and ARIN-2011-3. Additionally, ARIN-2016-6, which was recently recommended to the ARIN board and awaits their final approval and implementation by ARIN Staff probably sometime next year, removes the vestigial use of HD-Ratio and finally removes HD-Ratio from ARIN's NRPM. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_4.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_3.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html The overall goal of these policies was to provide a very generous initial IPv6 allocation or assignment, in most cases entities shouldn't have to come back ever or if the do they should only have to come back once or in rare cases twice in a lifetime. A /48 or /32 are only intended as the starting point for an end-user (PI) assignment or an ISP or LIR (PA) allocation respectively. There is a relatively conservative 75% threshold, but this is balanced by very generous increase, by a whole nibble or 16 times, once the threshold is crossed. Simply plucking the 75% threshold out of a complete and holistic rethink of IPv6 policy would be unadvisable, and I don't think would serve the RIPE community well. Thanks. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote: > Hi Leo, > > I?ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar > policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of > customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation. > > So yes, you?re right that we could split the question in two: > 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value > instead? > 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold? > > My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and > causes confusion if you?re using something different than /56, as the > actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be > assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: address-policy-wg en nombre de > Leo Vegoda > Responder a: > Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03 > Para: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es" , " > address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising > the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio > > Hi Jordi, > > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > [...] > > > So what do you think about: > > > > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria > > Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. > > ISP/LIR): > > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. > > How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular > significance or are > there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be > replaced > with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that > percentage > might be? > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, including attached files, is prohibited. > > > > > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mathew.Newton643 at mod.gov.uk Wed Dec 21 12:51:30 2016 From: Mathew.Newton643 at mod.gov.uk (Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch)) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:51:30 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jordi, > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: 18 December 2016 16:55 > > [...] > > The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new > policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a > longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to > do it at once, why wait for it? I would recommend staying away from the HD-ratio expansion aspect for the time being as I suspect it could bog your main effort down. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I didn't encompass subsequent allocations within 2015-03 (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) as there are a number of issues hiding under that rock and so I thought it best to stay well away! Moreover, the policy development process seems to work best when focussing on specific issues and whilst updating parts of the policy in isolation can lead to inconsistencies and conflict I don't think we have that risk here - the evolving text echoing initial allocation criteria for subsequent allocation assessments should be able to sit side-by-side with the extant HD-ratio justification with the latter being subject to discussion and possible alteration further down the line. Don't get me wrong; I do think that the whole subject of HD ratios should be put under the spotlight but it would serve those organisations that are struggling with the lack of more general criteria for subsequent allocations better if the current proposal on the table isn't held up by going down that route with this proposal. For what it's worth, I think HD-ratios are a sensible approach that cater for the differences in pain threshold for expansion of small and (very) large networks; my only issue with them is that at present they are the only means by which to justify additional address space hence my support for additional criteria being able to be considered (in addition to HD-ratios). Regards, Mathew From mir at ripe.net Thu Dec 22 16:34:59 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:34:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Studying the IPv4 Transfer Market Message-ID: <872c50f5-5537-9809-ccf6-20a0c6e3b9e6@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, One of the RIPE 73 RACI fellows, Ioana Livadariu, presented an interesting study about the IPv4 transfer market at the RIPE Meeting in Madrid. She now published this study also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ioana_livadariu/studying-the-ipv4-transfer-market Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From nick at ripe.net Wed Dec 28 15:48:51 2016 From: nick at ripe.net (Nick Hyrka) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:48:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: 15,000 LIRs Message-ID: <5c667e3b60064537337863d7052f7ecb@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Now that we've reached 15,000 LIRs, a new article on RIPE Labs looks at the growth of our membership and the impact this will have on the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/15-000-local-internet-registries Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC