From Kurt.Kayser at online.de Tue Apr 6 17:18:30 2021 From: Kurt.Kayser at online.de (Kurt Kayser) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:18:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Request about homologation of policy documents Message-ID: <0529033f-48f0-49ee-7d19-41bc489a17e9@online.de> Dear RIPE friends, I have scanned the current address policy documents and I have some questions about homologation between a couple of topics. There are 2 main areas of concern, which I would like to discuss: 1. Validity of RIPE-451 -? (IPv6 address space policy for IXPs.) aged well since 2009. ?? Option 1: drop this document entirely - the pointer for the document "Obtaining the address space" (RIPE-575) is anyway outdated/obsoleted. ?? Option 2: Integrate a relevant paragraph in the RIPE-738 (IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy) successor document? ?? For comparison: RIPE-733 (IPv4 address ---) this area is mentioned in Section 6.1 - mainly due to minimal resources left to use. 2. Comparing Sections 6.x from RIPE-733 (IPv4 adresses allocation and assignment policy) with RIPE-738 (IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy) ?? There are very nice paragraphs in Section 6.2 (network infrastructure) and 6.3 (validity of an assignment) which I miss as counterpart in RIPE-738. One would assume that there should somewhat similar approaches on how to assign and document used address space. There are also other areas that could be cleaned up (such as transfers? - completely moved out of these documents or extended?) Suggestion: why not keep the same section numbering for identical topics? Best regards, Kurt Kayser From ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk Thu Apr 8 15:38:14 2021 From: ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk (ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:38:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Database requirements progress References: <1811578196.1292616.1617889094533.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1811578196.1292616.1617889094533@mail.yahoo.com> Colleagues For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March and the TF has just published the minutes of their most recent meeting on their mail archive which can be found here:https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/ Their latest draft requirements document can be found here:https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-database-requirements-task-force-draft-document.pdf There are quite a number of recommendations made regarding registration of address space in the RIPE Database. In their latest meeting minutes they also mention creation of assignment objects in the database (but this is not yet in their draft document). It would be helpful if more people would read this document (and meeting minutes) and comment or discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft document before they publish their final version of the requirements. They also plan to hold a BOF sometime in May where you can make comments. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Fri Apr 9 14:20:52 2021 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:20:52 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair rotation 2021 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> Dear AP WG, Maybe not as timely as initially projected, but with no further delay ... We have 2 prospects for the Co-Chair position for the AP-WG, as Gert is leaving us as co-chair after 18 years of being one of the Chairs of the AP-WG ( since RIPE 44 in Amsterdam, 2003 ). Or the LIR WG as it was called back in those days.. ( https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-44/meeting-report ) Both Leo Vegoda and James Kennedy re-stated that they want to serve the WG as a co-Chair. Their motivation you can read below: James Kennedy: Clogg size M, preferably wooden. Relevant background - BSc degree in IT and Telecommunications from University of Limerick, 2005 - Various roles in technology in Luxembourg and Amsterdam before working for the Registration Services department of the RIPE NCC for 3.5 years - Now the IP Address Manager for tier 1 Internet access provider for over 8 years - Regular RIPE Meeting attendee and active RIPE community member - Author of address policy 2015-02: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 - Member of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf Likes - Well maintained, accurate, reliable data - Smart process simplification - Bottom-up, consensus-driven, open policy development Goals as AP-WG co-chair - Facilitate and encourage open, constructive discourse on address policy related topics - Provide neutral guidance to community members interested in proposing address policy - Support productive communication between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community regarding address policy issues in a post-IPv4 runout world Leo Vegoda: I had operational roles at two ISPs before joining the RIPE NCC's registration services team in 2000. I led the team for several years before joining ICANN to manage Internet Number Resources in its IANA team at the end of 2006. I then moved into ICANN's Office of the COO to focus on continuous improvement and organisational planning. I started a small business in 2020, and focus on helping organisations operating in the Internet infrastructure and community space. Clients include Euro-IX, PeeringDB, and UKNOF. I am also currently chairing RIPE's Code of Conduct TF. The first meeting I attended was RIPE 35, in 2000. I have previously submitted one policy proposal (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2006-07) and have implemented several more, both at the RIPE NCC and ICANN. And Leo's response in reply to the info above, as to what his shoe size is ... > My shoes say 255, but that is a Chinese scale. Also, I think my feet have spread after a year of almost not wearing shoes. Me and Gert had the pleasure on working with Leo and James in the last 6 months on topics in relation on the AP-WG related stuff. And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. I think they have a solid understanding of the policy making and background which is relevant for the AP-WG and a good addition to the position. During RIPE82 we will have the time in the agenda for the rotation process. If you like to support or have specific questions / concerns, please let us know via the mailing list or to myself directly. We will send out the AP-WG RIPE82 agenda shortly. Regards, Erik Bais On behalf of the AP-WG chair team. From sander at steffann.nl Fri Apr 9 15:25:54 2021 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:25:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair rotation 2021 In-Reply-To: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> Message-ID: Hi Erik and Gert, On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 12:20 +0000, Erik Bais wrote: > Me and Gert had the pleasure on working with Leo and James in the > last 6 months on topics in relation on the AP-WG related stuff. > And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, > to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. I have no problem with that. It'll complicate the rotation process in the future, but that'll be a luxury problem ? > I think they have a solid understanding of the policy making and > background which is relevant for the AP-WG and a good addition to the > position. > > During RIPE82 we will have the time in the agenda for the rotation > process.? Thanks for all the hard work! Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dfk at ripe.net Fri Apr 9 15:56:04 2021 From: dfk at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:56:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair rotation 2021 In-Reply-To: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> Message-ID: <5B730AED-5379-4720-B77E-B00E6EA93116@ripe.net> On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:20, Erik Bais wrote: > ? And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG > agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair > WG. ? By all means as long as the three of you are all comfy with this and you can work out the rotation in the future. Daniel Full disclosure: I am both a RIPE participant from RIPE 0 and on the RIPE NCC staff. From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Fri Apr 9 16:03:30 2021 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:03:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] WG chair rotation 2021 In-Reply-To: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:20:52PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote: Dear Erik, All, > And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side. -- Piotr Strzy?ewski From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 9 16:55:32 2021 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:55:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> Message-ID: <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> On 9 Apr 2021, at 15:03, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote: > >> And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. > > That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side. Sorry Piotr, strong opposition from my side. What?s the justification for an extra co-chair? The workload in this WG is diminishing and may well vanish soon. Address policy is effectively finished. There?s no more IPv4 to distribute and current policy seems good enough to handle the dregs of v4. LIRs generally get a single IPv6 allocation that?ll meet their needs for decades - not that we?ll run out of IPv6 in the forseeable future. I think this WG doesn?t really need two co-chairs, far less three. Though I suppose every WG should have two co-chairs to cover for absence and/or simplify succession planning. Please remember that 10+ years ago -- when tinkering with IPv4 allocation policy was at its peak -- Gert ran the WG all by himself. If one person was able to manage that when the WG had lots to do, why should today?s WG business need three people? IMO, it?s a mistake to add extra WG co-chairs just for the sake of it. Or to avoid choosing between two or more excellent and equally matched candidates. Do we really want to see RIPE become a forum where everybody is a co-chair of something or other? From gert at space.net Fri Apr 9 18:03:08 2021 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:03:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:55:32PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > What???s the justification for an extra co-chair? The workload > in this WG is diminishing and may well vanish soon. Address policy > is effectively finished. There???s no more IPv4 to distribute and > current policy seems good enough to handle the dregs of v4. LIRs > generally get a single IPv6 allocation that???ll meet their needs > for decades - not that we???ll run out of IPv6 in the forseeable > future. What I have heard was that people want to have a go at rewriting all the (number) policy documents into something more easy to understand and more consistent. This is quite a bit of work for the WG and the chair team. After that, we might see the WG go dormant, indeed... Gert Doering -- no hats today -- 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 sander at steffann.nl Fri Apr 9 18:06:53 2021 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:06:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 15:55 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > Please remember that 10+ years ago -- when tinkering with IPv4 > allocation policy was at its peak -- Gert ran the WG all by himself. That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. Cheers, Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 9 18:12:00 2021 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 17:12:00 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann wrote: > > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately > after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as > co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. I stand corrected Sander. No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 528 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From sales at logicweb.com Fri Apr 9 18:21:43 2021 From: sales at logicweb.com (Sales) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:21:43 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <2034c6d7-8933-4963-98ca-69c2f02d3eca@Spark> Hi team Not sure how I was cc?d in these emails but please remove me. Can?t seem to find any unsubscribe options here or on ripe. On Apr 9, 2021, 12:12 PM -0400, Jim Reid , wrote: > > > > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately > > after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as > > co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. > > I stand corrected Sander. > > No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jkennedy at libertyglobal.com Fri Apr 9 22:15:02 2021 From: jkennedy at libertyglobal.com (Kennedy, James) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 20:15:02 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now? As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team. This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm. Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 To: Sander Steffann Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski ; RIPE address policy WG Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann wrote: > > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair > immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was > accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. I stand corrected Sander. No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair? From leo at vegoda.org Sat Apr 10 18:55:44 2021 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 09:55:44 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <10AB26A8-3DBE-422D-8C13-C519B976E46E@bais.name> <891A2DA7-B9C6-451E-885C-67B01B629E0F@rfc1035.com> <23026FFF-F59B-424C-9905-C49BF8059B0F@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi, I echo James on Gert's accumulated experience. Separately, I think it's worth noting that a team of three provides more resilience. In the event that one person is unavailable or has to recuse themselves from a discussion, there is always another person to work through issues with. Kind regards, Leo On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Kennedy, James via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now? > > As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team. > > This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm. > > Regards, > James > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Jim Reid > Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski ; RIPE address policy WG > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair > > > > > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair > > immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was > > accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. > > I stand corrected Sander. > > No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair? > > From erik at bais.name Tue Apr 13 17:07:28 2021 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:07:28 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Request about homologation of policy documents In-Reply-To: <0529033f-48f0-49ee-7d19-41bc489a17e9@online.de> References: <0529033f-48f0-49ee-7d19-41bc489a17e9@online.de> Message-ID: Hi Kurt, The AP-WG Chairs are planning ( as it is quiet in the AP-WG these days anyway .. ) to use the time to see if we need to review all current allocation / assignment policies for v4, v6 and ASn's. This will be part of the discussions starting during the RIPE82 meeting. We will have a presentation on the topic about various types of IP space.. ( administrative types.. ) as they are technically all the same.. It could be that the policies will be impacted after having that discussion .. or that the WG decides that we should review things how we look at certain policies. So yes, let's take this into the discussion, and pick this up on the RIPE82 AP-WG meeting after that discussion about the above topic. Regards, Erik Bais PS. I'm glad that the RIPE-733-61 document does have the requirement in there to return the space ... ?On 06/04/2021, 17:19, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Kurt Kayser" wrote: Dear RIPE friends, I have scanned the current address policy documents and I have some questions about homologation between a couple of topics. There are 2 main areas of concern, which I would like to discuss: 1. Validity of RIPE-451 - (IPv6 address space policy for IXPs.) aged well since 2009. Option 1: drop this document entirely - the pointer for the document "Obtaining the address space" (RIPE-575) is anyway outdated/obsoleted. Option 2: Integrate a relevant paragraph in the RIPE-738 (IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy) successor document? For comparison: RIPE-733 (IPv4 address ---) this area is mentioned in Section 6.1 - mainly due to minimal resources left to use. 2. Comparing Sections 6.x from RIPE-733 (IPv4 adresses allocation and assignment policy) with RIPE-738 (IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy) There are very nice paragraphs in Section 6.2 (network infrastructure) and 6.3 (validity of an assignment) which I miss as counterpart in RIPE-738. One would assume that there should somewhat similar approaches on how to assign and document used address space. There are also other areas that could be cleaned up (such as transfers - completely moved out of these documents or extended?) Suggestion: why not keep the same section numbering for identical topics? Best regards, Kurt Kayser From bijal at euro-ix.net Wed Apr 14 15:17:21 2021 From: bijal at euro-ix.net (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:17:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE DBTF Feedback Message-ID: <2E04D71A-EAAA-4725-9145-0BA85A48FACC@euro-ix.net> Dear colleagues, I am writing to inform you that the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF), is soliciting feedback on our recommendations for; Person Objects Historical Data Legal Address If you are interested or have any feedback on these topics, then please join the conversation on the RIPE Database WG mailing list so that we can keep all feedback and discussions in one place. Kind regards, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Mon Apr 26 12:50:35 2021 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:50:35 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda AP-WG RIPE82 - virtual AP-WG Message-ID: Dear working group, In the approaching time to the RIPE82 meeting there will be a couple things that are going to change. First as you may be aware, the AP-WG session is going to be on the TUESDAY instead of the Wednesday. This is due to the preference of people to not have WG sessions in parallel. So the AP-WG session is moved to the Tuesday May 18th 10:30 am Amsterdam time (CEST - UTC+2) Second this is going to be last WG session with our faithful Gert as co-Chair of the WG, as he is going to step down. And because he started RIPE 44 in Amsterdam, 2003 as chair for the LIR-WG (now AP-WG), he is probably one of the longest serving Chairs in our community. So, on the agenda, we have the following planned. We will be publishing a couple presentations in pre-recording, so that we can have more time for discussions. The publication of those pre-recordings is planned for the weekend before the WG session. The session is in the meeting schedule for 90 minutes .. but we plan to do a short break in approx. the middle.. to allow for some fresh coffee / short toilet break. So we have a pretty full agenda .. and we expect the session to allow for more time for discussion on various topics with this format, along with the information of the NCC about various topics. --- Draft agenda AP-WG session - RIPE82 A. Administrative Matters - Gert D?ring Welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc. B. WG Chair selection / appointment - Erik Bais C. Current Policy Topics (Q&A based on pre-published slides/recording) Angela Dall'Ara, PDO, RIPE NCC - Global policy overview "What's going on?" - Common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - Brief overview of new proposals (if any) D. Feedback from the RIPE NCC Registry Services (Q&A based on pre-published slides/recording) Marco Schmidt, Registration Services [5 minutes break to top-up the hot drink of your choice] E. Introduction of candidates for the NRO NC Ulka Athale F. (Tentative) Agenda item arising from the DBTF James Kennedy or another DBTF member G. What colour is my IP(v4) space? PI addresses and LIRs Remco van Mook h. Systematic Review of RIPE Address Policy (Discussion) - Proposal to review whether environmental changes since a policy were agreed should be addressed with a policy update Z. AOB Hope to see you all on RIPE82. Regards, Gert D?ring & Erik Bais, AP-WG chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 26 19:16:06 2021 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:16:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda AP-WG RIPE82 - virtual AP-WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8da44de5013d6d7257ed725de508f7508451a5c3.camel@steffann.nl> Hi chairs! On Mon, 2021-04-26 at 10:50 +0000, Erik Bais wrote: > Second this is going to be last WG session with our faithful Gert as > co-Chair of the WG, as he is going to step down. > And because he started RIPE 44 in Amsterdam, 2003 as chair for the > LIR-WG (now AP-WG), he is probably one of the longest serving Chairs > in our community. We should plan something nice for him at the next physical RIPE meeting ? ? > So, on the agenda, we have the following planned.? We will be > publishing a couple presentations in pre-recording, so that we can > have more time for discussions. > The publication of those pre-recordings is planned for the weekend > before the WG session. So just to be 101% clear: we are watching those video's in our own time before the session, and the session itself will be DISCUSSION ONLY, right? Cheers! Sander -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Apr 28 16:02:52 2021 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:02:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Stockpiling IPv6 Update Message-ID: <9452a8fd-e9fd-6f68-00a9-8424bd197100@ripe.net> Dear Address Policy Working Group, During the last Address Policy WG session in October 2020, we provided an update on the topic of stockpiling IPv6 allocations. For the upcoming RIPE 82 meeting, we want to share some additional information to support the community discussion. To summarise, the RIPE NCC observed a significant amount of members requesting several IPv6 allocations via multiple LIR accounts or the transfer policy. Based on the IPv6 policy, it is possible to request up to a /29 IPv6 allocation per LIR account, without any justification needed. Firstly, we want to stress again that this is not about any potential scarcity of IPv6. Rather we would like to ask the Working Group if the current development is within the intend of the IPv6 policy. Currently, we see around 100 members that have collected multiple IPv6 allocations with totaling amounts of /26 or more, with the maximum of 91 IPv6 allocations (totals /23+). To put this in perspective, in the last ten years, only 12 members could document the need for initial allocations of a /26 or more, with a decreasing trend in the last years while at the same time, more multiple smaller IPv6 allocations are being requested. We see a big discrepancy between organisations being able to justify larger IPv6 allocation based on actual network plans (despite eased policy requirements) and organisations that collect many /29 allocations without any real requirement of justification. We also noticed that some of the members rent out large blocks of their multiple allocations to other ISPs. While the IPv6 policy supports this approach, we would like to raise awareness that this creates a strong dependency of the ISP to their LIR, especially if large IPv6 networks are being deployed. In case the members decide to change their business model or terminate the membership, the sub-ordinated ISPs will be forced to renumber whole IPv6 networks or follow any requirement set by the LIR. We hope that this information will help the Working Group to review if the current development is in line with the intent of the IPv6 policy. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Assistant Manager Registry Services and Policy Development RIPE NCC