From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Feb 1 13:27:05 2017 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:27:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Message-ID: <2DAC24B4-CFB9-4520-B368-5F81F299A0EC@consulintel.es> Hi all, I just want to clarify that this version, compared with the initial version and the previous discussions in the list, has only minor grammar/clarifications edits and the main difference is that we have removed the HD-ratio change, to sync it with the actual HD-ration tables being used by the IPv6 policy. As you know, it is required by the PDP, in order to the WG chairs to judge if there is consensus, that you stated (or restate if you already done this in the previous phase), if you agree or not with this version. So please, go ahead, re-read it and provide your inputs to the list. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** 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 Krengel at citkomm.de Wed Feb 1 14:14:20 2017 From: Krengel at citkomm.de (Krengel Martin) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:14:20 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e8cf503d7b4ae99fd30bd7485bc530@STRAUBING3.citkomm.local> Hi all, I still support the proposal. As mentioned in previous posts and being also considered in the RIPE impact analysis this seems to be a useful harmonization of policies dealing with (nearly) the same situation for LIRs. Regards Martin -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 2:14 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4882 bytes Desc: not available URL: From meyer at it-nds.de Sat Feb 4 10:27:25 2017 From: meyer at it-nds.de (Frank Meyer) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:27:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree Message-ID: Hello, I agree to 2016-05 ! Why having 2 different policies for the same thing? - Two policies cause overhead and double effort. - Different policies punish early birds in ipv6 deployment. So let us synchronise the policies. Best regards! Frank lir de.government sub lir Niedersachsen From LIR at bva.bund.de Mon Feb 6 15:23:52 2017 From: LIR at bva.bund.de (LIR (VM II 9)) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:23:52 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello all, I am in favour of the proposal 2016-05. In my opinion it makes sense to align and harmonize the policies for initial and subsequent IPv6 allocations and I believe that this policy proposal will achieve such a harmonization. All the best Sascha Knabe Bundesverwaltungsamt Local Internet Registry de.government -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5763 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk Mon Feb 6 15:41:03 2017 From: Ian.Dickinson at sky.uk (Dickinson, Ian) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:41:03 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: <2DAC24B4-CFB9-4520-B368-5F81F299A0EC@consulintel.es> References: <2DAC24B4-CFB9-4520-B368-5F81F299A0EC@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <9B3BFE0A18160E40BAF1950414D10FAE898338D5@WPMBX010.bskyb.com> I support 2016-05 as-is. I agree that avoiding HD-ratio change is sensible at this time. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: 01 February 2017 12:27 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Hi all, I just want to clarify that this version, compared with the initial version and the previous discussions in the list, has only minor grammar/clarifications edits and the main difference is that we have removed the HD-ratio change, to sync it with the actual HD-ration tables being used by the IPv6 policy. As you know, it is required by the PDP, in order to the WG chairs to judge if there is consensus, that you stated (or restate if you already done this in the previous phase), if you agree or not with this version. So please, go ahead, re-read it and provide your inputs to the list. Thanks a lot! Regards, Jordi Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** 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. Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD. From gert at space.net Tue Feb 7 11:17:16 2017 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:17:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase: Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170207101716.GR2367@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:59:03PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" has been published. > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 31 January 2017. Based on the feedback received from the working group, and the feedback from the NCC by means of the impact analysis, the proposer has decided to rewrite the proposal text to make the goal clearer and reduce potential side-effects. When this is done, a new impact analysis will be done, and then the proposal re-enters review phase. This will take a few weeks. Marco will send the formal announcement when the new IA is ready and the next review phase starts. 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 gert at space.net Tue Feb 7 17:02:29 2017 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:02:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170207160229.GA830@Space.Net> Dear Address Policy WG, On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:08:32PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. > > The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. > > Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: > > - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document > - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation???s business (such as a merger or acquisition) [..] first of all, my most sincere apologies for dragging my feet on this for such a long time (and special apologies to Erik Bais as the proposer, who is not known as a very patient man but showed extraordinary patience). Evaluating consensus on this was a bit complicated. - there were a few clear voices of support for this fourth version (but since this has been going on for a while, I'm inclined to consider supporting voices from the last rounds as "still supportive" for this version) - there was a fairly long discussion on whether M&A should be included in this or not - my co-chair Sander Steffann got involved in that discussion, and thus completely abstained in judging the outcome. Reading through it again, I consider the opposing argument to be *addressed* - especially since these parts were included right from version 1, have been openly communicated at multiple RIPE meetings, and are not "something new and unexpected" in version 4 (Sascha Luck indeed did oppose this earlier on). - there was even more discussion about items unrelated to the proposal itself, more of a whishlist what other bits could be in there (like, listing the broker in the transfer statistics) - changes that are independent on this proposal, which for "normal" transfers does not change policy, just reorganizes text. Thus, I declare that we have rough consensus - more rough than in many cases, but still rough consensus according to PDP. With that, we move 2015-04 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal announcement for that in the next days. For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is what I have based my decision on. If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair Review Phase for V4.0, starting September 07, 2016 During the last Review Phase five persons stated their support for this latest version of 2015-04: Tore Anderson Stefan van Westering Remco van Mook Havard Eidnes Riccardo Gori The following people opposed the proposal with the argument that organisations should be allowed to transfer resources after they have freed them after a company merger and network consolidation process: Plesa Niculae Ciprian Nica Marius Cristea Yuri NTX Palumbio Flavia Sascha Luck repeated his opposition that he don't want anything M&A related in the policy text. Havard Eidnes, Radu Adrian and Sander Steffann tried to address this opposition by clarifying that the intention of this proposal is to prevent the abuse of the merger loophole. Also it was said that a 24 month holding period is not really business impacting as a network consolidation needs time anyhow and also IP resources could be transferred before the merger takes place in the registry. Sander also highlighted that freed 16-bit ASN can always be returned to the RIPE NCC if not longer needed. There were some side threads, for example Ciprian Nica asking to list the broker in the transfer statistic and to remove the date from the allocation netname. Erik responded that this should be done in another proposal and that he is not taking this on board of his proposal. Marius Cristea said that RIPE NCC should not mandate LIRs to pay the full membership fee, should only follow policy and don't impose anything else - clarified by Sander Steffann that this is membership related and not regulated by RIPE policies. Roger J?rgensen stated that is correct to use resources with policy limitation and not treat it as a normal asset without limitation - he didn't stated a clear support though. -- 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 matthieu at herrb.eu Tue Feb 7 19:26:58 2017 From: matthieu at herrb.eu (Matthieu Herrb) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:26:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification) Message-ID: <20170207182658.GA88523@nebraska.herrb.net> Hi, sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected. My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI allocation would not violate the policy. Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the original proposal and Ond?ej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost. In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay completely under his control, even though the systems using them are operated by his clients. This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small scale hosting). RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI space usage is really restricted for small entities. Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not using PI space for this kind of hosting ? Regards, -- Matthieu Herrb From ebais at a2b-internet.com Tue Feb 7 21:18:59 2017 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais - A2B Internet) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:18:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: <20170207160229.GA830@Space.Net> References: <20170207160229.GA830@Space.Net> Message-ID: <31D0DA6A-187B-42B5-9832-EA9EE7FE0430@a2b-internet.com> Hi Gert, I know you well enough to not take this personal and if you are not responding to me on a couple nudges, you must have a good reason for it. Thank you for the work and lets get started on the last call on this. Regards, Erik Bais > Op 7 feb. 2017 om 17:02 heeft Gert Doering het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Address Policy WG, > >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:08:32PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. >> >> Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: >> >> - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document >> - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation???s business (such as a merger or acquisition) > [..] > > > first of all, my most sincere apologies for dragging my feet on this > for such a long time (and special apologies to Erik Bais as the proposer, > who is not known as a very patient man but showed extraordinary patience). > > > Evaluating consensus on this was a bit complicated. > > - there were a few clear voices of support for this fourth version > (but since this has been going on for a while, I'm inclined to > consider supporting voices from the last rounds as "still supportive" > for this version) > > - there was a fairly long discussion on whether M&A should be included > in this or not - my co-chair Sander Steffann got involved in that > discussion, and thus completely abstained in judging the outcome. > Reading through it again, I consider the opposing argument to be > *addressed* - especially since these parts were included right from > version 1, have been openly communicated at multiple RIPE meetings, > and are not "something new and unexpected" in version 4 (Sascha > Luck indeed did oppose this earlier on). > > - there was even more discussion about items unrelated to the proposal > itself, more of a whishlist what other bits could be in there (like, > listing the broker in the transfer statistics) - changes that are > independent on this proposal, which for "normal" transfers does not > change policy, just reorganizes text. > > > Thus, I declare that we have rough consensus - more rough than in many > cases, but still rough consensus according to PDP. > > With that, we move 2015-04 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal > announcement for that in the next days. > > For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or > something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is > what I have based my decision on. > > If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the > conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know. > > Gert Doering, > Address Policy WG Chair > > > Review Phase for V4.0, starting September 07, 2016 > > > During the last Review Phase five persons stated their support for this latest > version of 2015-04: > > Tore Anderson > Stefan van Westering > Remco van Mook > Havard Eidnes > Riccardo Gori > > The following people opposed the proposal with the argument that organisations > should be allowed to transfer resources after they have freed them after a > company merger and network consolidation process: > > Plesa Niculae > Ciprian Nica > Marius Cristea > Yuri NTX > Palumbio Flavia > Sascha Luck repeated his opposition that he don't want anything M&A related in > the policy text. > > Havard Eidnes, Radu Adrian and Sander Steffann tried to address this > opposition by clarifying that the intention of this proposal is to prevent the > abuse of the merger loophole. Also it was said that a 24 month holding period > is not really business impacting as a network consolidation needs time anyhow > and also IP resources could be transferred before the merger takes place in > the registry. Sander also highlighted that freed 16-bit ASN can always be > returned to the RIPE NCC if not longer needed. > > There were some side threads, for example Ciprian Nica asking to list the > broker in the transfer statistic and to remove the date from the allocation > netname. Erik responded that this should be done in another proposal and that > he is not taking this on board of his proposal. > Marius Cristea said that RIPE NCC should not mandate LIRs to pay the full > membership fee, should only follow policy and don't impose anything else - > clarified by Sander Steffann that this is membership related and not regulated > by RIPE policies. > > Roger J?rgensen stated that is correct to use resources with policy limitation > and not treat it as a normal asset without limitation - he didn't stated a > clear support though. > > > -- > 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 From mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Feb 8 13:43:09 2017 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:43:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is a single transfer policy with all relevant information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 9 March 2017 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to before 9 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From mir at ripe.net Wed Feb 8 14:54:07 2017 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:54:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Addressing in 2016 (by Geoff Huston) Message-ID: <656a9394-a372-c9ce-c4e4-db1e9c943eae@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, For those who missed Geoff Huston's article about "Addressing in 2016" on the APNIC blog, it is now also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/addressing-in-2016 "Let?s see what has changed in the past 12 months in addressing the Internet, and look at how IP address allocation information can inform us of the changing nature of the network itself." Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 15:24:28 2017 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:24:28 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi. It would be great to allow transfers for blocks, received by means of merge and acquisition procedure of two or more different legal entities. The reason is next: one company joins another one, but it doesn't need the blocks of the joined company. Current policies disallow to transfer the blocks if the 24 month period didn't expire. The NCC can mark such blocks as m&a, ma or other and allow to transfer them. It will not cause new speculations due to there are different companies. 8 ??? 2017 ?. 15:43 ???????????? "Marco Schmidt" ???????: > Dear colleagues, > > Proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", is now in Concluding > Phase. > > The goal of this proposal is a single transfer policy with all relevant > information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text in > several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month holding > period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of holdership. > > The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the > proposal will now move to Last Call. > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four > week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified > objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose > the proposal. > > Any objection must be made by 9 March 2017 and must be supported by an > explanation. > > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the > proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for > consensus. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to < > address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 9 March 2017. > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Feb 8 17:02:32 2017 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:02:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 Last Call for Comments (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170208160232.GN2367@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 05:24:28PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > It would be great to allow transfers for blocks, received by means of merge > and acquisition procedure of two or more different legal entities. > > The reason is next: one company joins another one, but it doesn't need the > blocks of the joined company. > > Current policies disallow to transfer the blocks if the 24 month period > didn't expire. > > The NCC can mark such blocks as m&a, ma or other and allow to transfer them. > > It will not cause new speculations due to there are different companies. This would have to be addressed in a new policy proposal. At this point in the PDP, no changes are possible anymore (the proposal might be bounced back to review phase if *new* arguments opposing it show up, and then it could be changed - but the changes should be along the original scope of the proposal) See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642 for a description of the phases of the PDP, and what can and can not be done in Last Call ("Concluding Phase"). 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 mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Feb 15 10:52:24 2017 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:52:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE 73 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 73 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-73 Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From Mathew.Newton643 at mod.gov.uk Wed Feb 15 17:11:33 2017 From: Mathew.Newton643 at mod.gov.uk (Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch)) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:11:33 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear WG, Apologies for my belated follow-up; I agree with Sascha's position below so that's a +1 from me. Regards, Mathew > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of LIR (VM II 9) > Sent: 06 February 2017 14:24 > To: 'address-policy-wg at ripe.net' > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 I agree > > Hello all, > > I am in favour of the proposal 2016-05. In my opinion it makes sense to align > and harmonize the policies for initial and subsequent IPv6 allocations and I > believe that this policy proposal will achieve such a harmonization. > > All the best > Sascha Knabe > > Bundesverwaltungsamt > Local Internet Registry de.government From John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch Wed Feb 15 17:47:42 2017 From: John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch (John.Collins at BIT.admin.ch) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:47:42 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D23C81DA72B5A4CACB3B12075F7B347DD024BAC@SB00112A.adb.intra.admin.ch> Hello all, I support the new version 2.0 of the Policy Proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" Regards, John -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 14:14 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Revert initial changes to the HD-ratio calculation - Clarification as to when the new need justifies a subsequent allocation - Clarification as to what the subsequent allocation size will be based on You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05/draft We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 22 February 2017. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum From sander at steffann.nl Fri Feb 24 09:55:30 2017 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:55:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 going to last-call (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Message-ID: Hello Working Group, The last review phase of 2016-05 (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) has just ended, and for this policy proposal a quick decision of the working group chairs was easy. There has only been positive feedback from you so we have declared consensus and asked the RIPE NCC to move the proposal to the Last Call phase. The positive feedback to the current version was from: - John Collins - Ian Dickinson - Sascha Knabe - Martin Krengel - Frank Meyer - Mathew Newton Thanks to the working group for working on this proposal, Sander Steffann RIPE APWG co-chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Feb 27 10:58:00 2017 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:58:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 Last Call for Comments (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Proposal 2016-05, "Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to match the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements with the initial allocation requirements. The WG Chair has declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 28 March 2017 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to before 28 March 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum