From remco.vanmook at gmail.com Thu Sep 5 17:57:32 2019 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:57:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 New Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) In-Reply-To: <435fbec7-f983-44c3-8791-6cbe8c024099@www.fastmail.com> References: <84323719-75d5-6cfa-907c-264293ee1800@foobar.org> <9ccc209e-9e4e-9c07-5666-4b7b4781e6f2@foobar.org> <20190809105452.GF27571@hanna.meerval.net> <387b5168-2bd4-24e0-3f78-91700b6035d8@netravnen.de> <8223D2B2-B476-48BB-8AE3-D07E5187E441@clouvider.co.uk> <20190809124117.GE55186@Space.Net> <60FDF54C-3122-4CB7-9AF3-6D0F0BD25D27@de-cix.net> <94331191-d8c2-59c2-b602-f1a80a3d3ff8@foobar.org> <435fbec7-f983-44c3-8791-6cbe8c024099@www.fastmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, As one of the proposers I would like to point out that this proposal is not about changing the default allocation size for IXPs, and as such I personally consider suggestions to change it out of scope for a discussion on this policy. On top of that, I don?t think it?s substantive opposition to enlarging the lifespan of the IXP pool, which is what this proposal aims to achieve - rather, I consider it an expansion of what is being proposed (do THIS and do THAT, too). That said, having seen the arguments and numbers, I will personally commit to drafting a policy proposal to change the default IXP location size to something smaller (/25, /26, /27?) once the process on the current proposal has been concluded. (With apologies to Radu for stealing his thread to reply) Kind regards Remco van Mook > On 12 Aug 2019, at 10:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, at 10:59, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I agree with Wolfgang - the current version is fine, and Gert - that it >> is important to move on this because otherwise we'll lose the >> opportunity forever, and that would be a shame because IXPs perform an >> important function for the Internet as a whole. > > +1 > We should go on with the current version. > *IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you can still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the extra space secured. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 874 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From erik at bais.name Sat Sep 7 15:29:04 2019 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 13:29:04 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 Policy Proposal (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) - Moving to Last Call Message-ID: <2FF66A76-4904-40FE-B0FD-858ACF4CA4DB@a2b-internet.com> Dear WG, The AP WG Chairs have seen more than sufficient support to get the policy to the next phase. The policy proposal is about extending the IXP pool with an additional /16 from the current IP Pool at the NCC. The next phase is Last Call. The discussion about the default allocation size wasn't part of this policy proposal, but with the response on the subject by Remco, we do think that this is properly addressed. If it is required, he is more than willing to address that in a new proposal after RIPE79. The RIPE NCC will reserve the /16 already for the actual implementation of 2019-05, making sure that we are not left empty handed when the last call ends. For now, we will wait for Marco to do the formal announcement of the start of Last Call and I wish you, on behalf of the AP-WG Chair collective, a nice weekend. Regards, Erik Bais Co-Chair AP-WG From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Sep 9 09:57:37 2019 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:57:37 +0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2019-05 Last Call for Comments (Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Proposal 2019-05, "Revised IPv4 assignment policy for IXPs", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal aims to increase the reserved IPv4 pool for IXPs to a /15 and finetune assignment criteria. The WG co-chairs have 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 8 October 2019 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 co-chairs for final consensus. As this policy change has reaches rough consensus, the RIPE NCC has now reserved 185.0.0.0/16 for this policy change. If final consensus is achieved, the /16 will be used as per the policy proposal, and alternatively, if the proposal is withdrawn, the address space will be returned to the IPv4 pool for allocations. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to before 8 October 2019. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC From phasani at ripe.net Thu Sep 19 14:00:38 2019 From: phasani at ripe.net (Petrit Hasani) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:00:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?Policy_Proposal_Implemented=3A_201?= =?utf-8?q?9-02_=22IPv4_Waiting_List_Implementation=E2=80=9D?= Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented RIPE Policy Proposal 2019-02, "IPv4 Waiting List Implementation?. This policy established a waiting list with an allocation size of /24 once the RIPE NCC?s free IPv4 pool is exhausted. Please note: although this policy has been implemented (our software and procedures have been updated), it is not yet active. The policy is triggered when the RIPE NCC can no longer allocate the equivalent of a /22. We will send another announcement once the policy becomes active. The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02 The RIPE Document, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-725 -- Kind regards, Petrit Hasani RIPE NCC Registration Services