From ggiannou at gmail.com Tue Mar 1 09:52:52 2016 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:52:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C0161323CC6@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> References: <56B207AA.2080907@ripe.net> <20160203180053.GB58491@Space.Net> <20160206145433.5c9e5f84@envy> <20160206185743.GE3589@cilantro.c4inet.net> <55C0E24D-D7DC-4880-940F-A1AD75DF2005@a2b-internet.com> <20160206202007.GF3589@cilantro.c4inet.net> <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C0161323CC6@E2010-MBX03.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: Hello all, Just before the review phase ends, I'd like to express my agreement with this proposal. [X] yes, this makes sense, go there Keeping all transfer policies in a single document is much more convenient than searching within scattered documents. I also strongly support Remco's suggestion to reference this policy in the other policy documents -- George On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Sascha & Daniel, > > The reason for using the term "scares resource", is because we > can't/shouldn't use the term "depleted'.. > > If one would use the term "Depleted' the NCC might say that the pool isn't > completely empty yet.. so it isn't depleted yet.. > Which would mean that there is, until it is really empty, no transfer > restriction. ( that is a different discussion.. ) > > The community suggested in the last 2 RIPE meetings that the transfer > restrictions should not apply for 32 bits ASN and IPv6.. > > The policy proposal states : > > > 2.2 Transfer Restrictions > > Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that are > allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4 > or 16-bit ASNs), cannot be transferred for 24 months from the date the > resource > > was received by the resource holder. > > The Impact Analyses states : > > > Holding Period for Scarce Resources > > The RIPE NCC understands ?scarce resources? to include IPv4 PA, IPv4 PI > and 16-bit AS Numbers. If the community declares other resources to be > scarce, the list of resources for which the holding period will apply will > be adjusted accordingly. > > The policy proposal dictates what a scares resource is (after community > discussion in the last 2 RIPE meetings) and it is the policy that is > leading here.. > > The Impact Analyses of the RIPE NCC, is what the RIPE NCC thinks what is > written and intended by the policy.. and they are re-hashing what we did > and how additional 'future' scares resources might need to be defined in > the future. > > If the community declares other resources to be scarce, the list of > resources for which the holding period will apply will be adjusted > accordingly.. > And as that is a policy change, it should go through the PDP process. > > I think that what you are asking is what is already in the proposal and > what you are looking for in a procedure, is already what is the used > process ... > > If not, what are we missing ? > > Regards, > Erik Bais > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Wed Mar 2 17:30:55 2016 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:30:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Message-ID: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> Hi, As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons are discussed. Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook ( with no hats ) that there might be some future issue on similar policy changes that might provide a policy issue as the previous version of the draft had. While I understand his line of thinking, I don?t think that we give the legal team enough credit to spot future issues similar as the one in the past draft.. I like to think there is a learning curve And I will also invite Remco to keep reading future policy proposals from myself and others to make sure that there aren?t any un-intentional issues that might be introduced in future policy. Having said that, he also stated that there is currently nothing wrong with the version at the table. On the final remark of Remco, if we need to see if we need to review the actual current structure of the policies.. I agree and I would like to have a good discussion on that. But that is to me a discussion outside the scope of this policy proposal. On the suggestion of Remco and second by Tore (also with no hats), Tore wrote : > Remco suggested adding references to the new policy document in lieu of > the removed sections in ripe-638, ripe-649, and ripe-655. I would not > object to that. This was later also agreed to by a (+1) from Sascha Luck (also without any hats), Guy Chilton (Again .. no hats..) And if we agree that the blunt removal of the transfer text in the current affected policies and having a single transfer document isn't clear enough, I'm not against adding a reference to the new proposed transfer policy document. The only response opposing to the current structure is Peter Koch. Peter stated that he is : > "Generally I'm always nervous when policy/legislation is > "streamlined" by "just editorial changes", and also recent experience here > would suggest extreme caution. Things get complicated when they are > taken out of their respective context (tempus and locus)." And I agree partially with him. Doing things with caution is something that we are all part of here.. And I think that we have proven that we are very careful on making certain changes. The biggest change here is indeed the editorial one, however that is to avoid in doing large changes while also doing editorial changes .. it was clear to everyone that the editorial changes was desired by the majority of the community when the initial changes / transfer policy text was written into the policies.. and this was the 'clean-up and stream-line action.' > At least, the work is incomplete as proposed now, simply because the > affected policies will have to be re-published with a new number and timestamp, > so the (outdated) references will have to be adjusted (this includes > evaluation and thus is more than a simple editorial change) and now > obsolete text ought to be dealt with accordingly. The necessity to > add normative references to a new omnibus document has already been mentioned. I'm reading this that Peter could live with the suggestion done by Remco for the references.. if we are going that route.. And from what I've heard, a change like Remco suggested, would not require a complete rehash into the PDP or redoing any phases again. I hope that with the current summary I have given a quick view of where I think we are ... And if Sander and Gert don't mind, I would like to ask to extend the discussion period for 2 weeks to allow for additional comments on this email and perhaps other insights. Regards, Erik Bais Author of 2015-04 ... aka ... The mad hatter ... From gert at space.net Wed Mar 2 17:39:16 2016 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 17:39:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> References: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <20160302163916.GN21153@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 05:30:55PM +0100, Erik Bais wrote: > As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would > like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks > additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons > are discussed. Makes sense. Marco, could you please take note and update the timeline in the PDP machine? Erik, thanks for doing a great summary - and dear working group, please provide more feedback :-) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Wed Mar 2 23:46:14 2016 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:46:14 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> References: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <1456958774.1047789.537836314.57648A41@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016, at 17:30, Erik Bais wrote: > As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) [x] yes, this makes sense, go there If anything minor needs adjustment, it can be done afterwards. The way it is today, the policy is clearly better than the existing status quo. From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Mar 7 11:17:30 2016 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:17:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Review Period extended until 22 March 2016 (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Message-ID: <56DD553A.8080204@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" has been extended until 22 March 2016. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 You can find a summary of the current proposal discussion at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-March/010966.html We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 11:46:02 2016 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:46:02 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> References: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: Dear all, thank you Erik for providing this helpful summary - although I do not think I was quite as indefinite in my concerns as you put in your summary :) I'll keep it simple and straightforward this time to prevent any confusion. 1) There is no need to restructure our set of policies based on the intention of this proposed policy. The intended simplification and abbreviation from the first drafts has been all but removed in this version to fix the holes that the simplification created. 2) That being said, I do support the intended direction of this policy proposal, but instead of creating a new separate document and ripping parts out of existing documents, I'd much prefer the change to be reflected in the existing set of documents, even if that means multiple documents having near-identical pieces of text. This is policy, not a database design. 3) A discussion is needed (and I don't even know where that discussion belongs, I'll leave that up to the RIPE chair to decide) on the structure of our set of policies, with the goal of increasing accessibility, transparency and reducing the risk of potential gaps, conflicts and duplicates. 4) Only after a conclusion of the discussion under 3) we should start entertaining policy proposals that change the nature of current policy structure. Kind regards, Remco Private Internet Citizen On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM Erik Bais wrote: > Hi, > > As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would > like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks > additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons > are discussed. > > Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook ( with no hats > ) > that there might be some future issue on similar policy changes that might > provide a policy issue as the previous version of the draft had. > > While I understand his line of thinking, I don?t think that we give the > legal team enough credit to spot future issues similar as the one in the > past draft.. I like to think there is a learning curve ? > And I will also invite Remco to keep reading future policy proposals from > myself and others to make sure that there aren?t any un-intentional issues > that might be introduced in future policy. > > Having said that, he also stated that there is currently nothing wrong with > the version at the table. > > On the final remark of Remco, if we need to see if we need to review the > actual current structure of the policies.. I agree and I would like to have > a good discussion on that. > But that is to me a discussion outside the scope of this policy proposal. > > On the suggestion of Remco and second by Tore (also with no hats), Tore > wrote : > > > Remco suggested adding references to the new policy document in lieu of > > the removed sections in ripe-638, ripe-649, and ripe-655. I would not > > object to that. > > This was later also agreed to by a (+1) from Sascha Luck (also without any > hats), Guy Chilton (Again .. no hats..) > > And if we agree that the blunt removal of the transfer text in the current > affected policies and having a single transfer document isn't clear enough, > I'm not against adding a reference to the new proposed transfer policy > document. > > The only response opposing to the current structure is Peter Koch. > > Peter stated that he is : > > "Generally I'm always nervous when policy/legislation is > > "streamlined" by "just editorial changes", and also recent experience > here > > would suggest extreme caution. Things get complicated when they are > > taken out of their respective context (tempus and locus)." > > And I agree partially with him. Doing things with caution is something that > we are all part of here.. And I think that we have proven that we are very > careful on making certain changes. > The biggest change here is indeed the editorial one, however that is to > avoid in doing large changes while also doing editorial changes .. it was > clear to everyone that the editorial changes was desired by the majority of > the community when the initial changes / transfer policy text was written > into the policies.. and this was the 'clean-up and stream-line action.' > > > At least, the work is incomplete as proposed now, simply because the > > affected policies will have to be re-published with a new number and > timestamp, > > so the (outdated) references will have to be adjusted (this includes > > evaluation and thus is more than a simple editorial change) and now > > obsolete text ought to be dealt with accordingly. The necessity to > > add normative references to a new omnibus document has already been > mentioned. > > I'm reading this that Peter could live with the suggestion done by Remco > for > the references.. if we are going that route.. > And from what I've heard, a change like Remco suggested, would not require > a > complete rehash into the PDP or redoing any phases again. > > I hope that with the current summary I have given a quick view of where I > think we are ... And if Sander and Gert don't mind, I would like to ask to > extend the discussion period for 2 weeks to allow for additional comments > on > this email and perhaps other insights. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > Author of 2015-04 ... aka ... The mad hatter ... > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Mar 10 10:40:11 2016 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:40:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New and Improved IPv4 Address Space Chart Message-ID: <56E140FB.7070502@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, During policy discussions, we often see people asking how long the RIPE NCC?s available IPv4 pool will last. This is a good question, as more than three years after the last /8 policy was activated, we still have almost an entire /8 still remaining in our pool. This is made more confusing by the regular allocations we have been receiving from IANA since 2014, which have been counteracting the reduction in addresses that we should have seen due to /22 allocations. To more accurately show the status of our remaining pool, we have updated our IPv4 Address Space Chart, which you can find here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph The updated chart makes the distinction between addresses from the last /8, and addresses that were received from IANA?s Recovered IPv4 Pool (as well as addresses recovered from our service region). We have also published a short article on RIPE Labs with some additional detail about our IPv4 pool: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last-slash-8 We hope this will help to inform the community?s policy discussions. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Thu Mar 10 11:08:09 2016 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:08:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New and Improved IPv4 Address Space Chart In-Reply-To: <56E140FB.7070502@ripe.net> References: <56E140FB.7070502@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20160310100809.GD93321@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:40:11AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > To more accurately show the status of our remaining pool, we have updated our IPv4 Address Space > Chart, which you can find here: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph Great work! Thanks, Marco. 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 Mon Mar 14 16:20:54 2016 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:20:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: <007801d174a0$e8d04e10$ba70ea30$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <00e301d17e05$1dec3290$59c497b0$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Remco, Thanks for the explanation. I agree that we should to have a good discussion on how we like to restructure the current policies. The requirement to discuss that however, should not stop us to improve the current process/policies imho. I know from discussions with others that have done complete or partial policy re-writes that the process is tedious, painful and long .. and I personally would not like to hold my breath on it to be finished before we are going to proceed on this one ? Your statement that the policy simplifications have been removed to the initial draft, yes there have been changes to the initial version, but one of the goals was to make it easier in a policy document to find all relevant text about transfers. And it is not all cosmetics in it.. I strongly support your question to the Chair to see where that particular discussion needs to be done, but I would like to see that done outside the discussion of this policy review. I will gladly make time to have that discussion, sit in on a ?future policy task force?, together with you as the initial volunteer, the chair and others, to see what the future direction will need to be. Having a policy that is different than the others, might in fact be the accelerator for the discussion that it could be done different and that a refresh of the other policies might be required. . . Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens remco van mook Verzonden: maandag 7 maart 2016 11:46 Aan: Erik Bais ; pdo at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; chair at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies Dear all, thank you Erik for providing this helpful summary - although I do not think I was quite as indefinite in my concerns as you put in your summary :) I'll keep it simple and straightforward this time to prevent any confusion. 1) There is no need to restructure our set of policies based on the intention of this proposed policy. The intended simplification and abbreviation from the first drafts has been all but removed in this version to fix the holes that the simplification created. 2) That being said, I do support the intended direction of this policy proposal, but instead of creating a new separate document and ripping parts out of existing documents, I'd much prefer the change to be reflected in the existing set of documents, even if that means multiple documents having near-identical pieces of text. This is policy, not a database design. 3) A discussion is needed (and I don't even know where that discussion belongs, I'll leave that up to the RIPE chair to decide) on the structure of our set of policies, with the goal of increasing accessibility, transparency and reducing the risk of potential gaps, conflicts and duplicates. 4) Only after a conclusion of the discussion under 3) we should start entertaining policy proposals that change the nature of current policy structure. Kind regards, Remco Private Internet Citizen On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM Erik Bais > wrote: Hi, As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. ) I would like to ask the AP-WG Chairs if they agree to add at least 2 weeks additional time to the discussion time to make sure that all pros and cons are discussed. Currently we are looking at an objection from Remco v. Mook ( with no hats ) that there might be some future issue on similar policy changes that might provide a policy issue as the previous version of the draft had. While I understand his line of thinking, I don?t think that we give the legal team enough credit to spot future issues similar as the one in the past draft.. I like to think there is a learning curve ? And I will also invite Remco to keep reading future policy proposals from myself and others to make sure that there aren?t any un-intentional issues that might be introduced in future policy. Having said that, he also stated that there is currently nothing wrong with the version at the table. On the final remark of Remco, if we need to see if we need to review the actual current structure of the policies.. I agree and I would like to have a good discussion on that. But that is to me a discussion outside the scope of this policy proposal. On the suggestion of Remco and second by Tore (also with no hats), Tore wrote : > Remco suggested adding references to the new policy document in lieu of > the removed sections in ripe-638, ripe-649, and ripe-655. I would not > object to that. This was later also agreed to by a (+1) from Sascha Luck (also without any hats), Guy Chilton (Again .. no hats..) And if we agree that the blunt removal of the transfer text in the current affected policies and having a single transfer document isn't clear enough, I'm not against adding a reference to the new proposed transfer policy document. The only response opposing to the current structure is Peter Koch. Peter stated that he is : > "Generally I'm always nervous when policy/legislation is > "streamlined" by "just editorial changes", and also recent experience here > would suggest extreme caution. Things get complicated when they are > taken out of their respective context (tempus and locus)." And I agree partially with him. Doing things with caution is something that we are all part of here.. And I think that we have proven that we are very careful on making certain changes. The biggest change here is indeed the editorial one, however that is to avoid in doing large changes while also doing editorial changes .. it was clear to everyone that the editorial changes was desired by the majority of the community when the initial changes / transfer policy text was written into the policies.. and this was the 'clean-up and stream-line action.' > At least, the work is incomplete as proposed now, simply because the > affected policies will have to be re-published with a new number and timestamp, > so the (outdated) references will have to be adjusted (this includes > evaluation and thus is more than a simple editorial change) and now > obsolete text ought to be dealt with accordingly. The necessity to > add normative references to a new omnibus document has already been mentioned. I'm reading this that Peter could live with the suggestion done by Remco for the references.. if we are going that route.. And from what I've heard, a change like Remco suggested, would not require a complete rehash into the PDP or redoing any phases again. I hope that with the current summary I have given a quick view of where I think we are ... And if Sander and Gert don't mind, I would like to ask to extend the discussion period for 2 weeks to allow for additional comments on this email and perhaps other insights. Regards, Erik Bais Author of 2015-04 ... aka ... The mad hatter ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at liopen.fr Tue Mar 29 14:41:50 2016 From: ripe at liopen.fr (Denis Fondras) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:41:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05: Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria Message-ID: <20160329124150.GA4178@belenos> Hello, A few comment about this draft : - "1. The size of the allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." may be reworded as "1. The size of the initial allocation made will be the equivalent of a /22." - "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry." may be reworded as "1. The LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address space out of its registry in the last 18 months."