From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri Nov 1 10:48:24 2019 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:48:24 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> Message-ID: Randy, I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, why? And happy to take this off-list, of course. Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday 31 October 2019 16:57 > To: Petrit Hasani > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > > randy From randy at psg.com Fri Nov 1 11:03:39 2019 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 03:03:39 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> Message-ID: brian, >> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, > why? i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything being recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net police and should resist inclinations to be come such. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! randy From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri Nov 1 11:35:45 2019 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:35:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> Message-ID: Randy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:04 > To: Brian Nisbet > Cc: Petrit Hasani ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > brian, > > >> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > > I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, > > why? > > i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything being > recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net police and > should resist inclinations to be come such. I would, perhaps unsurprisingly, argue that putting a proposal through AA-WG doesn't mean the community is trying to police things, rather the proposer feels that it is network abuse they are trying to stop, but that is perhaps a point better discussed over a beverage or perhaps a jam doughnut at RIPE 80. Thank you for explaining, much appreciated. > Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! But we... er... I mean they have such comfy chairs! Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 11:44:01 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:44:01 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> Message-ID: <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non-native English speakers. And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of course, agree which all the barbarities done at that time. Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only about the community setting up our own rules and avoiding governments enforcing that for us. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 1/11/19 11:36, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribi?: Randy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:04 > To: Brian Nisbet > Cc: Petrit Hasani ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > brian, > > >> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > > I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, > > why? > > i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything being > recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net police and > should resist inclinations to be come such. I would, perhaps unsurprisingly, argue that putting a proposal through AA-WG doesn't mean the community is trying to police things, rather the proposer feels that it is network abuse they are trying to stop, but that is perhaps a point better discussed over a beverage or perhaps a jam doughnut at RIPE 80. Thank you for explaining, much appreciated. > Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! But we... er... I mean they have such comfy chairs! Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri Nov 1 11:51:35 2019 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:51:35 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Jordi, Ah, the Spanish Inquisition reference is a Month Python reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python) Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:44 > To: Brian Nisbet ; Randy Bush > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non- > native English speakers. > > And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of course, > agree which all the barbarities done at that time. > > Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only about the > community setting up our own rules and avoiding governments enforcing > that for us. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 1/11/19 11:36, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> > escribi?: > > Randy, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy Bush > > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:04 > > To: Brian Nisbet > > Cc: Petrit Hasani ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs > for > > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > > > brian, > > > > >> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > > > I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, > > > why? > > > > i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything > being > > recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net police > and > > should resist inclinations to be come such. > > I would, perhaps unsurprisingly, argue that putting a proposal through AA- > WG doesn't mean the community is trying to police things, rather the > proposer feels that it is network abuse they are trying to stop, but that is > perhaps a point better discussed over a beverage or perhaps a jam doughnut > at RIPE 80. > > Thank you for explaining, much appreciated. > > > Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! > > But we... er... I mean they have such comfy chairs! > > Brian > > Brian Nisbet > Service Operations Manager > HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland > +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie > Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 11:52:57 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:52:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> Message-ID: I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 1/11/19 11:52, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribi?: Jordi, Ah, the Spanish Inquisition reference is a Month Python reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python) Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:44 > To: Brian Nisbet ; Randy Bush > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > Mmmm ... often those conversations are really difficult to catch for non- > native English speakers. > > And just in case ... I was not there during the Inquisition, neither, of course, > agree which all the barbarities done at that time. > > Also don't agree that any RIR should be the police, is only about the > community setting up our own rules and avoiding governments enforcing > that for us. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 1/11/19 11:36, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> > escribi?: > > Randy, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy Bush > > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 10:04 > > To: Brian Nisbet > > Cc: Petrit Hasani ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs > for > > Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on > > Routing Working Group Mailing List > > > > brian, > > > > >> i support this proposal, but would oppose it in the anti-abuse wg. > > > I have to ask, out of personal interest and with no hats on at all, > > > why? > > > > i am only in mild support of it. i am in strong unsupport of everything > being > > recast as an abuse and prosecuted as such. We are not the net police > and > > should resist inclinations to be come such. > > I would, perhaps unsurprisingly, argue that putting a proposal through AA- > WG doesn't mean the community is trying to police things, rather the > proposer feels that it is network abuse they are trying to stop, but that is > perhaps a point better discussed over a beverage or perhaps a jam doughnut > at RIPE 80. > > Thank you for explaining, much appreciated. > > > Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! > > But we... er... I mean they have such comfy chairs! > > Brian > > Brian Nisbet > Service Operations Manager > HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland > +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie > Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From nick at foobar.org Fri Nov 1 12:04:26 2019 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:04:26 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 01/11/2019 10:52: > I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxkcPoLYcQ It's a metaphor about how we start off with incremental additions that seem innocent, but they end up with an appalling outcome. See also: "boiling the frog" and "creeping featuritis". Nick From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 12:14:53 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 12:14:53 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> Message-ID: <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> Hi Nick, My point was also a general observation (not something against any specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in between lines as something different, even if not intended). There are many non-native English speakers in the RIR communities (at it happens in IETF, ICANN, etc.), however, often the native ones forget about that and keep using those jargons. Doing so, you as asking the non-native speakers to spend 4-5 more times to read each message, to google around, looking at Wikipedia, youtube, etc. Note that I fully understand that for those that are native-speakers, you are just using your natural language and expression, but being considerate to others may be much easier for you than for non-native to waste their time. Should then we, non-native speakers, start using in the list our own languages and expressions that even using google translator, you will not catch? Are we discriminating part of the community otherwise? Clearly, this doesn't belong to this thread/WG, but it doesn't help to the community to use those expressions. Some folks go away from the thread doing so, instead of facilitating participation, or if I can say, even inclusiveness. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 1/11/19 12:04, "Nick Hilliard" escribi?: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote on 01/11/2019 10:52: > I guess I don't have sufficient time to see enough films of TV shows ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxkcPoLYcQ It's a metaphor about how we start off with incremental additions that seem innocent, but they end up with an appalling outcome. See also: "boiling the frog" and "creeping featuritis". Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Nov 1 13:27:29 2019 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:27:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in between lines as something different, even if not intended). Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those who have been active in these communities for a while. To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty Python reference. And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling others how they should express themselves. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 13:38:08 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:38:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, Despite how many years I've been participating, I still have (sometimes) difficulties, and often talking with other non-native English speakers they tell me the same. We know that not everybody is happy to express that in a list. I'm not convinced "common-sense" is such simple thing! Otherwise, either I'm really stupid, or I should have cached the reference in a more humoristic way. I don't think we can compare our technical jargon with such kind of references, especially because not everybody (as it is my case) follows "Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc.". Precisely because I often heard those references, I decided today, to ask for a clarification! I've missed a lot of fun, I guess! I didn't respond to the first email because, sometimes, when a thread is moving fast in the list, you just respond to the last email that you read. Not sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" escribi?: > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in between lines as something different, even if not intended). Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those who have been active in these communities for a while. To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty Python reference. And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling others how they should express themselves. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri Nov 1 13:50:08 2019 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:50:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: I'm sure it will shock absolutely nobody if I say that I think this conversation is very important. Maybe AP-WG isn't the best place, but I'm not sure where is? I think it is useful to all of us to realise that our cultural references are not everyone else's, because of language or country or age or one of many other things. We can no longer just assume a shared set of references and we should look to inform (and hopefully share the awesomeness that is Monthy Python, for instance) and expand. I mean, how long will it be before WG Chairs start to talk about yeeting proposals into or out of WGs? ? I'm not, for one second, suggesting people shouldn't use references, I use them all the time, but I am saying that those who use them should be understanding when others don't get them. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid > Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions > > Hi Jim, > > Despite how many years I've been participating, I still have (sometimes) > difficulties, and often talking with other non-native English speakers they tell > me the same. We know that not everybody is happy to express that in a list. > > I'm not convinced "common-sense" is such simple thing! Otherwise, either > I'm really stupid, or I should have cached the reference in a more humoristic > way. > > I don't think we can compare our technical jargon with such kind of > references, especially because not everybody (as it is my case) follows > "Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc.". Precisely because I often > heard those references, I decided today, to ask for a clarification! I've missed > a lot of fun, I guess! > > I didn't respond to the first email because, sometimes, when a thread is > moving fast in the list, you just respond to the last email that you read. Not > sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de jim at rfc1035.com> escribi?: > > > > > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any > specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a > mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in > between lines as something different, even if not intended). > > Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this > case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a > literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. > > The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms > from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from > Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's > gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English > speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. > However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the > industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI > address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other > languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those > who have been active in these communities for a while. > > To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've > been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, > this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty > Python reference. > > And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked > the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. > It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling > others how they should express themselves. > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > From wusel+ml at uu.org Fri Nov 1 13:51:59 2019 From: wusel+ml at uu.org (Kai 'wusel' Siering) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:51:59 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: +1 Am 01.11.19 um 13:27 schrieb Jim Reid: > [?] > And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling others how they should express themselves. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 13:53:07 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:53:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Diversity? (in copy) ?El 1/11/19 13:50, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribi?: I'm sure it will shock absolutely nobody if I say that I think this conversation is very important. Maybe AP-WG isn't the best place, but I'm not sure where is? I think it is useful to all of us to realise that our cultural references are not everyone else's, because of language or country or age or one of many other things. We can no longer just assume a shared set of references and we should look to inform (and hopefully share the awesomeness that is Monthy Python, for instance) and expand. I mean, how long will it be before WG Chairs start to talk about yeeting proposals into or out of WGs? ? I'm not, for one second, suggesting people shouldn't use references, I use them all the time, but I am saying that those who use them should be understanding when others don't get them. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid > Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions > > Hi Jim, > > Despite how many years I've been participating, I still have (sometimes) > difficulties, and often talking with other non-native English speakers they tell > me the same. We know that not everybody is happy to express that in a list. > > I'm not convinced "common-sense" is such simple thing! Otherwise, either > I'm really stupid, or I should have cached the reference in a more humoristic > way. > > I don't think we can compare our technical jargon with such kind of > references, especially because not everybody (as it is my case) follows > "Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc.". Precisely because I often > heard those references, I decided today, to ask for a clarification! I've missed > a lot of fun, I guess! > > I didn't respond to the first email because, sometimes, when a thread is > moving fast in the list, you just respond to the last email that you read. Not > sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de jim at rfc1035.com> escribi?: > > > > > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any > specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a > mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in > between lines as something different, even if not intended). > > Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this > case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a > literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. > > The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms > from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from > Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's > gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English > speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. > However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the > industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI > address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other > languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those > who have been active in these communities for a while. > > To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've > been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, > this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty > Python reference. > > And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked > the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. > It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling > others how they should express themselves. > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Nov 1 13:57:45 2019 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 12:57:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <9BB835BB-9ADB-4862-A146-1FA5166B3588@rfc1035.com> > On 1 Nov 2019, at 12:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Diversity? Your email contained 1 word of signal and ~1000 words of noise. Please try to be more considerate when you post. From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 16:19:12 2019 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 08:19:12 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: <9BB835BB-9ADB-4862-A146-1FA5166B3588@rfc1035.com> References: <9BB835BB-9ADB-4862-A146-1FA5166B3588@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <130B0B2F-EB0D-48CE-9A4A-F0C8E9701B96@gmail.com> His email contained a suggestion to move an entire thread, that is threatening to become all noise and no signal, to a more appropriate discussion venue, namely the diversity working group. His one-word reply (not counting quoting, which modern mail clients do a good job of hiring) may have been the highest signal to noise ratio of this entire OT (albeit legitimate meta-discussion) thread. Scott > On Nov 1, 2019, at 5:57 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > ? > >> On 1 Nov 2019, at 12:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: >> >> Diversity? > > Your email contained 1 word of signal and ~1000 words of noise. > > Please try to be more considerate when you post. > > > From frettled at gmail.com Mon Nov 4 08:20:31 2019 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:20:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List In-Reply-To: <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 12:16 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg < address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any > specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a > mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted > in between lines as something different, even if not intended). > > There are many non-native English speakers in the RIR communities (at it > happens in IETF, ICANN, etc.), however, often the native ones forget about > that and keep using those jargons. > > Doing so, you as asking the non-native speakers to spend 4-5 more times to > read each message, to google around, looking at Wikipedia, youtube, etc. > > Note that I fully understand that for those that are native-speakers, you > are just using your natural language and expression, but being considerate > to others may be much easier for you than for non-native to waste their > time. > > Should then we, non-native speakers, start using in the list our own > languages and expressions that even using google translator, you will not > catch? Are we discriminating part of the community otherwise? > In some regards, you/we already do, as we impose our own English variants on other list members. I often need to spend 5-10 times more time reading your messages, than those of others, because you phrase things differently (and from my perspective, often awkwardly). It also happens with other non-native writers. I silently accept this as the cost of communication across borders with a common, imperfect language. It's how things are, and I'll just have to try and make the best of it. That said, I agree that anyone writing in their native or non-native English should be well aware that they need to be careful using idioms. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Wed Nov 13 14:41:46 2019 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:41:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2019-07_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Def?= =?utf-8?q?ault_assignment_size_for_IXPs=29?= In-Reply-To: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> Message-ID: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> Hello, On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" > is now available for discussion. A little late, but here's my point of view: - /27 is borderline for a default. Hopefully the 50% use within 2 years should alleviate this (even if I find it not enough). - Anything smaller than a /27 is close to useless. - Renumbering is painful and should be avoided as much as possible. - IXP growth may be very variable in time. You may struggle for 1-2 years, then add several dozens members the next year. You may easy get in a situation when renumbering falls in a period of rapid growth, which only makes things worse. The peering landscape has changed quite a lot during the last years. You have to deal with NOCs that function purely "by the book", usually a book not well written. You have to deal with lack of coordination between operations and strategy. You have to deal more and more with "the peering coordinator changed, there is no more peering policy". You have to deal with "there might be a slight impact, we need a change request approved, it will take 3 months at least". This noes not touch only the small participants, this does touch *EVERYONE*. At the end, you end up with x% (where x>10, even x>20) of your user base does not respond in a timely manner (if at all). Because of this you will end up looking as "not serious" (sometimes by the same people that took 3 months to do the renumbering). My suggestion : - if the default assignment size is to be lowered, that should be a /25 or a /26, not smaller. - The "target use" (currently "50% within 2 years"), should be a little more relaxed (either 3 years, or something like 35%-40% use within 2 years). I wouldn't mind reserving space for future enlargement (with reservations being re-allocated or reduced when space is needed by other members), but I think wording for that would render the policy way too complex. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 15:04:27 2019 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:04:27 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> References: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <934F838E-FDA3-475B-AD33-353E1A605B92@gmail.com> > On Nov 13, 2019, at 5:43 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > > ?Hello, > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, at 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" >> is now available for discussion. > > My suggestion : > - if the default assignment size is to be lowered, that should be a /25 or a /26, not smaller. > - The "target use" (currently "50% within 2 years"), should be a little more relaxed (either 3 years, or something like 35%-40% use within 2 years). > > I wouldn't mind reserving space for future enlargement (with reservations being re-allocated or reduced when space is needed by other members), but I think wording for that would render the policy way too complex. Isn?t that as simple as ?use sparse allocation?? As long as less than half of the remaining IXP pool has been used up, everyone can be given an allocation within a larger block with the ability to grow at least 2x. -Scott From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Wed Nov 13 20:52:37 2019 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:52:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2019-07_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Def?= =?utf-8?q?ault_assignment_size_for_IXPs=29?= In-Reply-To: <934F838E-FDA3-475B-AD33-353E1A605B92@gmail.com> References: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <934F838E-FDA3-475B-AD33-353E1A605B92@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, at 15:04, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Isn?t that as simple as ?use sparse allocation?? As long as less than > half of the remaining IXP pool has been used up, everyone can be given > an allocation within a larger block with the ability to grow at least > 2x. If "sparse allocation" is the magic word, it's OK for me. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 21:58:57 2019 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:58:57 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <934F838E-FDA3-475B-AD33-353E1A605B92@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, at 15:04, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > Isn?t that as simple as ?use sparse allocation?? As long as less than > > half of the remaining IXP pool has been used up, everyone can be given > > an allocation within a larger block with the ability to grow at least > > 2x. > > If "sparse allocation" is the magic word, it's OK for me. > I don't know, does that do what you want? :-) Sparse allocation would mean that each IXP assignment would be out of the block containing the greatest number of adjacent bits of unused space. That could be implemented either on an absolute basis (all allocations go into the biggest unused CIDR block available), or on a bit-shift basis. For a bit-shift sparse allocation strategy, if you have a free pool large enough to shift 4 bits, you'd assign /24s out of empty /20s, /27s out of empty /23s, etc. Then once you run out of blocks to accomplish that at 4-bit shift, you'd switch to 3 bits, and eventually down to 2 and then 1 bit before you have to give up on sparse allocation entirely. The disadvantage of sparse allocation is that it purposefully breaks up larger blocks, which may result in a lack of contiguous space for the largest IXPs sooner than would otherwise occur, in order to allow earlier IXPs to more easily grow their assignments. This is particularly acute with an absolutely sparse strategy, where the biggest blocks get broken up immediately, regardless of how tiny their allocations are. A bit-shift sparse allocation policy, or similarly a "reserved space" strategy, avoids that issue by limiting how much space is reserved for each IXP to grow into. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at foobar.org Thu Nov 14 14:56:14 2019 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:56:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote on 13/11/2019 13:41: > A little late, but here's my point of view: > - /27 is borderline for a default. Hopefully the 50% use within 2 > years should alleviate this (even if I find it not enough). > - Anything smaller than a /27 is close to useless. - Renumbering is > painful and should be avoided as much as possible. > - IXP growth may be very variable in time. You may struggle for1-2 > years, then add several dozens members the next year. You may easy > get in a situation when renumbering falls in a period of rapid > growth, which only makes things worse. The purpose of a policy should be to fix a specific problem. As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe what problem you want to see fixed here? Nick From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Thu Nov 14 18:46:20 2019 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:46:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?2019-07_New_Policy_Proposal_=28Def?= =?utf-8?q?ault_assignment_size_for_IXPs=29?= In-Reply-To: <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> Message-ID: <41ec2656-0cb4-4e44-86cd-81a9765b0966@www.fastmail.com> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019, at 14:56, Nick Hilliard wrote: > As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe what > problem you want to see fixed here? Problem : adapt the default assignment to the needs of most, in order to prolong pool's life, while allowing those that need to grow to do so while minimising re-numbering at maximum. To put it other way, I'm in favour of the idea, but not in favour of the current wording. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From nick at foobar.org Fri Nov 15 13:22:08 2019 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:22:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <41ec2656-0cb4-4e44-86cd-81a9765b0966@www.fastmail.com> References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> <41ec2656-0cb4-4e44-86cd-81a9765b0966@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote on 14/11/2019 17:46: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019, at 14:56, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe >> what problem you want to see fixed here? > > Problem : adapt the default assignment to the needs of most, in order > to prolong pool's life, while allowing those that need to grow to do > so while minimising re-numbering at maximum. It looks like the pool is probably large enough to last indefinitely under the current assignment policy. It's not clear what changing the assignment policy is going to fix. Nick From gert at space.net Fri Nov 15 13:26:31 2019 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:26:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> <41ec2656-0cb4-4e44-86cd-81a9765b0966@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: <20191115122631.GZ72330@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:22:08PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote on 14/11/2019 17:46: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019, at 14:56, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> As you're speaking in favour of the proposal, can you describe > >> what problem you want to see fixed here? > > > > Problem : adapt the default assignment to the needs of most, in order > > to prolong pool's life, while allowing those that need to grow to do > > so while minimising re-numbering at maximum. > > It looks like the pool is probably large enough to last indefinitely > under the current assignment policy. It's not clear what changing the > assignment policy is going to fix. Not wanting to stop a lively discussion, but technically we're behind the end of the discussion period and Remco is supposed to decide on "does the proposer want to proceed, rewrite, withdraw" now. Do we need more time? Or has any substantial argument been made, and everything else is just repetition now? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer 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 wusel+ml at uu.org Fri Nov 15 14:28:25 2019 From: wusel+ml at uu.org (Kai 'wusel' Siering) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:28:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 New Policy Proposal (Default assignment size for IXPs) In-Reply-To: References: <77175ef4-a8c9-ddfc-da96-a33477c8f88d@ripe.net> <10b7c10b-caff-4572-9bba-879a5e6eb08c@www.fastmail.com> <8c961e81-39f7-35dc-cc9e-c74b40055e4e@foobar.org> <41ec2656-0cb4-4e44-86cd-81a9765b0966@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: Moin, am 15.11.19 um 13:22 schrieb Nick Hilliard: > It's not clear what changing the assignment policy is going to fix. As far as I can see, it would give a use case for the fragmented space RIPE NCC holds, while saving on the final IXP-v4 addresses at the same time? Regards, -kai From phasani at ripe.net Wed Nov 20 16:56:47 2019 From: phasani at ripe.net (Petrit Hasani) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:56:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-07 Discussion Period extended until 19 December (Default assignment size for IXPs) Message-ID: <1F51C9F2-B87A-4881-99EE-E5FCCD529B52@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2019-07, "Default assignment size for IXPs" has been extended until 19 December 2019. This proposal aims to change the default IXP assignment size from a /24 to a needs-based model, with a /27 as a minimum. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-07 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to . Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From phasani at ripe.net Mon Nov 25 15:36:55 2019 From: phasani at ripe.net (Petrit Hasani) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:36:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Automatic updates to the RIPE Policy Document "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" Message-ID: <429A8BE7-4544-4FE0-A7C1-4E74FA966EDA@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, As a result of the depletion of the RIPE NCC free IPv4 pool, the following automatic updates were initiated to the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", as described in the policy document itself. 1) On Friday, 22 November 2019, in accordance with section 5.2 "Unforeseen circumstances" of the policy document, the RIPE NCC started distributing equivalents of /22 IPv4 allocations from the /16 IPv4 block that was reserved for unforeseen circumstances. The relevant section [5.2 ?Unforeseen circumstances?] has therefore been deleted from the document and the subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly. 2) Today, Monday 25 November 2019, the RIPE NCC distributed the last equivalent of /22 IPv4 address space from the available pool. Therefore, as described in the policy document, section 5.1 was replaced with the contents of section 5.1bis, and section 5.1bis was deleted from the policy document. Section 5.1 "Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs" now states: "On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following: 1. All allocation requests are placed on a first-come-first-served waiting list. No guarantees are given about the waiting time. 2. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /24. 3. The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC is limited to a maximum of 256 IPv4 addresses (a single /24). If this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded, an LIR cannot request an IPv4 allocation under this policy." The updated RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From ximaera at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 16:47:47 2019 From: ximaera at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?=) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:47:47 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] A list of actions during quarantine Message-ID: Peace, There's a page[1] on the NCC web site which says: "When we recover IPv4 addresses, we hold on to them for a quarantine period. During this time, we take a number of actions that help to make it clear the addresses are no longer associated with their previous holder and should be considered as ?new? address space." Is the particular list of actions applied to an IPv4 prefix outlined somewhere? Is it only prevention of routing, or e.g. trash cans like Spamhaus are contacted too? [1] https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv4/how-waiting-list-works -- T?ma