From michele at blacknight.com Thu Nov 4 09:33:16 2021 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 08:33:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling In-Reply-To: References: <7D136656-DFDC-49D2-B092-CCFFAD2E7FF2@consulintel.es> <11322F29-5658-4874-B5C7-AEB43EA547CE@brandergroup.net> Message-ID: The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jetten Raymond Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31 To: Jake Brander , Gert Doering , Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi Jake, Thanks for your comment. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough. In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts.. Best Regards, Ray One of the IPv6 wg co chairs https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6 Hanki Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jake Brander Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM To: Gert Doering ; Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago. The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available.. How do we get people to actually use it? All the best, Jake Brander President | Brander Group Inc. O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266 jake at brandergroup.net | www.brandergroup.net Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More ?On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality. > > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education. > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy. > > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :) This! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 For Internal Use Only -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gih at apnic.net Thu Nov 4 09:53:34 2021 From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 08:53:34 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling In-Reply-To: References: <7D136656-DFDC-49D2-B092-CCFFAD2E7FF2@consulintel.es> <11322F29-5658-4874-B5C7-AEB43EA547CE@brandergroup.net> Message-ID: <93A9BB33-0E09-4EF3-8ED5-3EF68D5DD280@apnic.net> > On 4 Nov 2021, at 7:33 pm, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via address-policy-wg wrote: > > The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country: > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption > > That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries > You might want to play around with some other IPv6 measurements. Perhaps https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 might be useful. However, the maps only show part of the picture, as the user population within each economy is equally, or even more, significant. If you look at https://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/v6dcc.html then it's clear that India?s 460M IPv6 users are a major part of the total global IPv6 user population of 1.2B users. Its also the case that while an uptake rate of 19% in China looks a lot less than the 52% uptake in Germany or 48% in the US, the user population in China, some 838M users, means that China has some 160M IPv6 users, more than any other economy bar India. If you are really interested there is a bewildering amount of additional detail, including GDP, allocations, allocations per capita, etc at https://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/v6.html regards, Geoff From leo at vegoda.org Wed Nov 17 16:15:10 2021 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 07:15:10 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 1st Draft Agenda for Address Policy WG at RIPE 83 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Address Policy WG, Pre-recorded videos and presentation slides have started to be published on our agenda page at: https://ripe83.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ap-wg/ We will be dedicating time during the session to questions and discussion, with just a brief recap of each topic. We encourage you to start watching these ahead of time to be prepared for the session itself. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:54 AM Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Dear Address Policy WG, > > Here is the first draft agenda for RIPE 83's Address Policy WG. We > want to give as much time as possible to discussion. For this reason, > we are continuing with the concept of pre-publishing videos and slides > for report items on the agenda. This way, people can review the > presentations at their leisure, allowing us to dedicate more time to > answering questions and discussing issues with each other. > > You will be able to watch pre-recorded presentations and review slides > from Monday, 15 November. They will be available on > https://ripe83.ripe.net and we will send a note linking to the > relevant page. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > for the Address Policy WG co-Chairs > > A. Administrative Matters (5 mins) > Chairs > Welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc. > > B. ASO AC Report Summary and Questions (10 mins) > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > James Kennedy / Nurani Nimpuno / Herv? Clement > > C. NRO NC/ASO AC Candidate Introductions (10 mins) > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > Ulka Athale, Sr. Communications Officer, RIPE NCC > > D. Q&A on Current Policy Topics (15 mins) > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > Angela Dall'Ara, Policy Officer, RIPE NCC > > E. Q&A on Feedback from the RIPE NCC Registry Services (15 mins) > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > Marco Schmidt, Registry Services, RIPE NCC > > F. RIPE Database Requirements TF (10 mins) > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > James Kennedy > > G. Break (5 mins) > > H. Review of RIPE IPv6 Policy Goals (20 mins) From leo at vegoda.org Sun Nov 21 13:17:29 2021 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 04:17:29 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 1st Draft Agenda for Address Policy WG at RIPE 83 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Another reminder that video presentations are already available for review. Time during the session will focus on discussion. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:15 AM Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Dear Address Policy WG, > > Pre-recorded videos and presentation slides have started to be > published on our agenda page at: > > https://ripe83.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ap-wg/ > > We will be dedicating time during the session to questions and > discussion, with just a brief recap of each topic. We encourage you to > start watching these ahead of time to be prepared for the session > itself. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:54 AM Leo Vegoda wrote: > > > > Dear Address Policy WG, > > > > Here is the first draft agenda for RIPE 83's Address Policy WG. We > > want to give as much time as possible to discussion. For this reason, > > we are continuing with the concept of pre-publishing videos and slides > > for report items on the agenda. This way, people can review the > > presentations at their leisure, allowing us to dedicate more time to > > answering questions and discussing issues with each other. > > > > You will be able to watch pre-recorded presentations and review slides > > from Monday, 15 November. They will be available on > > https://ripe83.ripe.net and we will send a note linking to the > > relevant page. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Leo Vegoda > > for the Address Policy WG co-Chairs > > > > A. Administrative Matters (5 mins) > > Chairs > > Welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc. > > > > B. ASO AC Report Summary and Questions (10 mins) > > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > > James Kennedy / Nurani Nimpuno / Herv? Clement > > > > C. NRO NC/ASO AC Candidate Introductions (10 mins) > > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > > Ulka Athale, Sr. Communications Officer, RIPE NCC > > > > D. Q&A on Current Policy Topics (15 mins) > > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > > Angela Dall'Ara, Policy Officer, RIPE NCC > > > > E. Q&A on Feedback from the RIPE NCC Registry Services (15 mins) > > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > > Marco Schmidt, Registry Services, RIPE NCC > > > > F. RIPE Database Requirements TF (10 mins) > > This will be pre-recorded and published a week ahead. > > A 2 slide recap will be presented live before questions are taken. > > James Kennedy > > > > G. Break (5 mins) > > > > H. Review of RIPE IPv6 Policy Goals (20 mins) From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Nov 23 11:43:09 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:43:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? Message-ID: Hi all, After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discussion and the recent discussions on this, as I just mention, should we work in a policy proposal to amend the internal procedure so the justification for additional LIRs is stronger? I understand many cases for the need of an additional LIR, but doing valid for *any artificial case* is not good. Any though on that? Possible ideas about how we define the border line? As usual, I'm happy to work on this myself, or together with other folks. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** 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 gert at space.net Tue Nov 23 11:46:36 2021 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:46:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 11:43:09AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discussion and the recent discussions on this, as I just mention, should we work in a policy proposal to amend the internal procedure so the justification for additional LIRs is stronger? There is no "justification for additional LIR" policy, as that's a contractual matter... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 jordi.palet at consulintel.es Tue Nov 23 11:52:38 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:52:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88EE960E-B99C-4C61-824B-C77ACBCEA222@consulintel.es> Exactly, that's why a policy may be needed if I understood correctly Marco response, but anyway, happy to get further inputs from staff about that. The question is "may it be handled only via a contractual change" or we need a policy to "implement that contractual change"? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 23/11/21 11:46, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribi?: Hi, On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 11:43:09AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > After looking at the video from Marco, today presentation/discussion and the recent discussions on this, as I just mention, should we work in a policy proposal to amend the internal procedure so the justification for additional LIRs is stronger? There is no "justification for additional LIR" policy, as that's a contractual matter... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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 policy at ntx.ru Tue Nov 23 11:53:20 2021 From: policy at ntx.ru (Staff) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:53:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello everybody, Of cause no. That will not help. always possible to avoid. Doing more complex polices is not good way. NCC had already lot of issues with that. Does any body remember how they asked to use email with the name to use in their database and people should change emails lot of times to sutisfy NCC.... We did? a lot of noise and NCC canceled it. Brr... If people request space - then they need it and they select this way to get it with NCC. This is normal process. No rush here. NCC should work as usual. Yury From karla.wagner at protonmail.ch Tue Nov 23 12:38:31 2021 From: karla.wagner at protonmail.ch (Karla Wagner) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 11:38:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Excellent Presnetations & Videos, how can I help? Message-ID: <5PN54TRAEC5ufiYFTlQ9ytH4afcfGjWy4XYwuX8pll67JgS0NjoZvV8BnHJEtD6ZiE-1NG9v8BPcUvQTWjrhhn9WOyFkH2Zo4dFilsrwbS0=@protonmail.ch> Good Morning! The material presented hung together well, and the speakers asked excellent questions. Thank you for that !! Having a keen interest (and a course or two) in public policy, I'd be interested in helping out. Please let me know. (The speaker indicated that help was needed, and to refer to the mailing lists.) Met vriendelijke groet, Karla Verzonden door ProtonMail Secure Email. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: publickey - karla.wagner at protonmail.ch - 0xFA282AD5.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 1833 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 509 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jameskennedy001 at gmail.com Tue Nov 23 13:11:03 2021 From: jameskennedy001 at gmail.com (_ _) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:11:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling Message-ID: Hi, Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4 stockpiling. - when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s) to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de facto local RIRs) - this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee - as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy. Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not, how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership category)? Regards, James apwg co-chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jameskennedy001 at gmail.com Tue Nov 23 13:25:39 2021 From: jameskennedy001 at gmail.com (James Kennedy) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 13:25:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling Message-ID: [changed mail client alias\author to my name, apologies for duplication] Hi, Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4 stockpiling. - when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s) to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de facto local RIRs) - this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee - as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy. Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not, how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership category)? Regards, James apwg co-chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at vegoda.org Tue Nov 23 14:52:38 2021 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 05:52:38 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Excellent Presnetations & Videos, how can I help? In-Reply-To: <5PN54TRAEC5ufiYFTlQ9ytH4afcfGjWy4XYwuX8pll67JgS0NjoZvV8BnHJEtD6ZiE-1NG9v8BPcUvQTWjrhhn9WOyFkH2Zo4dFilsrwbS0=@protonmail.ch> References: <5PN54TRAEC5ufiYFTlQ9ytH4afcfGjWy4XYwuX8pll67JgS0NjoZvV8BnHJEtD6ZiE-1NG9v8BPcUvQTWjrhhn9WOyFkH2Zo4dFilsrwbS0=@protonmail.ch> Message-ID: Hi Karla, On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:38 AM Karla Wagner via address-policy-wg wrote: > > Good Morning! > > The material presented hung together well, and the speakers asked excellent questions. Thank you for that !! > > Having a keen interest (and a course or two) in public policy, I'd be interested in helping out. > > > Please let me know. (The speaker indicated that help was needed, and to refer to the mailing lists.) Thanks for stepping forward and volunteering. We'll be posting messages asking for input on the topics raised during today's session soon. Your input is welcome! Thanks, Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs From ripedenis at gmail.com Tue Nov 23 19:33:55 2021 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:33:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Assignments from a /24 allocation Message-ID: Colleagues The issue came up again today at the AP-WG session at RIPE-83 about making assignments from a /24 allocation. People are forced to create two 'artificial' /25 assignments. Again this is used as one argument against having to register assignments in the RIPE Database. Regardless of the bigger picture about registering assignments, there is a simple solution to the /24 allocation issue. Make the "status:" attribute multiple. Then this /24 INETNUM object can have: status: ALLOCATED PA status: ASSIGNED PA Business rules can restrict the use of multiple status to very specific use cases. Maybe only allow a second status of 'ASSIGNED PA' in an object with status 'ALLOCATED PA'. The normal rules then apply to an assignment, so there can be no more specifics. Then any allocation of any size can be assigned in its entirety without having to create more specific pseudo assignment objects. Business rules could also allow this option for 'SUB-ALLOCATED PA'. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG From zenker at punkt.de Tue Nov 23 21:52:51 2021 From: zenker at punkt.de (Wolfgang Zenker) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 21:52:51 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions Message-ID: Greetings, in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an amount that is not visible to the other bidders. - highest bid wins. Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly quarantined address block to start their business. Regards, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info at punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 From arash_mpc at parsun.com Wed Nov 24 01:33:40 2021 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:33:40 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, How does it work with EU and Dutch sanctions regulations? Regards, Arash Naderpour On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:52 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > Greetings, > > in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of > the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with > multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has > increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no > longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for > blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market > value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for > creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. > The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 > block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, > defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. > > I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: > - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. > - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an > amount that is not visible to the other bidders. > - highest bid wins. > > Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because > they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market > without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on > the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses > in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly > quarantined address block to start their business. > > > Regards, > Wolfgang Zenker > -- > punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: > -100 > .infrastructure info at punkt.de > https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ > Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian > Stein > D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zenker at punkt.de Wed Nov 24 08:59:13 2021 From: zenker at punkt.de (Wolfgang Zenker) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:59:13 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good morning, Am Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:33:40AM +1100 schrieb Arash Naderpour: > How does it work with EU and Dutch sanctions regulations? I don't know. How does the current system work with the sanctions regime? > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:52 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: >> in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of >> the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with >> multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has >> increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no >> longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for >> blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market >> value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for >> creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. >> The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 >> block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, >> defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. >> I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: >> - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. >> - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an >> amount that is not visible to the other bidders. >> - highest bid wins. >> Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because >> they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market >> without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on >> the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses >> in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly >> quarantined address block to start their business. Regards, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info at punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 24 10:26:25 2021 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 10:26:25 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Assignments from a /24 allocation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73b1cd5f-300b-76be-a459-3cff860a0515@schiefner.de> Danis and all - may I here in this WG point to my suggestion of May this year, too? Thread starts in May: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-May/006976.html and continues (and finally stalls) in June: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-June/007015.html Best, -C. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [db-wg] NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context - reprise Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 12:45:35 +0200 From: Carsten Schiefner via db-wg Reply-To: Carsten Schiefner To: DB-WG Dear all - after a quick chat with Dennis on this, he encouraged me to toss this into the seemingly stalled, but not yet dead debate: Right now, only the "inet[6]num:" attribute is the primary key to, of or for inet[6]num objects. I wonder if it would be possible to make the tuple ("inet[6]num:","status:") the primary key instead: that should solve the challenge to have an assignment that shall have the size of an allocation. In case this has been exhaustedly discussed here already, please excuse my ignorance - I then obviously have failed to spot the respective contribution in the archives. All the best, -C. On 23.11.2021 19:33, denis walker wrote: > Colleagues > > The issue came up again today at the AP-WG session at RIPE-83 about > making assignments from a /24 allocation. People are forced to create > two 'artificial' /25 assignments. Again this is used as one argument > against having to register assignments in the RIPE Database. > Regardless of the bigger picture about registering assignments, there > is a simple solution to the /24 allocation issue. Make the "status:" > attribute multiple. Then this /24 INETNUM object can have: > status: ALLOCATED PA > status: ASSIGNED PA > > Business rules can restrict the use of multiple status to very > specific use cases. Maybe only allow a second status of 'ASSIGNED PA' > in an object with status 'ALLOCATED PA'. The normal rules then apply > to an assignment, so there can be no more specifics. Then any > allocation of any size can be assigned in its entirety without having > to create more specific pseudo assignment objects. Business rules > could also allow this option for 'SUB-ALLOCATED PA'. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Nov 24 11:14:10 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:14:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15B1CB49-F46D-4690-8090-BC07828D5899@consulintel.es> Not acting is a path for abuse and stockpiling. Not fair and we must resolve it avoiding it as much as possible. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 23/11/21 11:59, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Staff" escribi?: Hello everybody, Of cause no. That will not help. always possible to avoid. Doing more complex polices is not good way. NCC had already lot of issues with that. Does any body remember how they asked to use email with the name to use in their database and people should change emails lot of times to sutisfy NCC.... We did a lot of noise and NCC canceled it. Brr... If people request space - then they need it and they select this way to get it with NCC. This is normal process. No rush here. NCC should work as usual. Yury To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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 Wed Nov 24 11:27:38 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:27:38 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BC5E09-C730-4108-B3D0-E610B82E51AC@consulintel.es> +1 We may need to consider if it is right that the remains of IPv4 can be allocated to new LIRs from existing members instead to only new-entrants. I think the community must be fairer. This is the way handled in other RIRs as well (not all them). If the problem with IPv6 is that the justification is harder to get more than /29, one possible approach is to clarify it, not neccesarilly with a policy change but guidelines, etc. ?Note that I don?t think that?s the case, I really believe if you need more than /29, it is possible to justify it, but may be people believe that it is easier to artificially create multiple LIRs and get a /29 for each one. This is something that only the staff can tell. As much info as we have about why this happens, easier to find possible avenues for a better solution. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/11/21 13:26, "address-policy-wg en nombre de James Kennedy" escribi?: [changed mail client alias\author to my name, apologies for duplication] Hi, Re: 'who does IPv6 hoarding really hurt' or 'what's the danger', we should learn from some very harsh real-life lessons that happened with IPv4 stockpiling. - when IPv4 was plentiful, a number of RIPE members we able to hoard vast volumes of IPv4 and distribute large IPv4 network prefixes (e.g. full /18s) to their customers but provide little to no technical services (became de facto local RIRs) - this was attractive to their customers at the time - often network operators - because the RIPE members would lease the address space for a much lower price than a RIPE NCC membership fee - as their customers became increasingly dependant on those IPv4 network prefixes over time to run their operations, the RIPE members abused their power and raised the lease costs to absolute extortionate and unaffordable amounts - often to sell the parent allocation on the IPv4 market This is in addition to conflicting with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy, and reducing the RIPE NCC's ability to check and verify that the address space is being used in line with RIPE IPv6 goals and policy. Do we really want to sleepwalk into a similar situation with IPv6? If not, how can we proactively safeguard IPv6 from such abuse while ensuring easy access to IPv6 for real deployments? Change IPv6 transfer policy, and/or lower the RIPE NCC membership fee (e.g. a cheaper IPv6-only membership category)? Regards, James apwg co-chair To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Nov 24 11:30:06 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:30:06 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> I don't think this will work and it not fair. Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from exisiting members. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 23/11/21 21:53, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Wolfgang Zenker" escribi?: Greetings, in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an amount that is not visible to the other bidders. - highest bid wins. Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly quarantined address block to start their business. Regards, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info at punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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 gert at space.net Wed Nov 24 11:35:48 2021 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:35:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:30:06AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I don't think this will work and it not fair. > > Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from exisiting members. That's a nice solution. Just have a checkmark on the "new LIR" form that says [ ] this is a new LIR and not related to any other LIR having IPv4 space and people would certainly fill this in correctly. Surely? Gert Doering -- professional pessimist -- 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 jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Nov 24 11:38:48 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:38:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify documents, etc., right? ?El 24/11/21 11:35, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribi?: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:30:06AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > I don't think this will work and it not fair. > > Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from exisiting members. That's a nice solution. Just have a checkmark on the "new LIR" form that says [ ] this is a new LIR and not related to any other LIR having IPv4 space and people would certainly fill this in correctly. Surely? Gert Doering -- professional pessimist -- 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 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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 gert at space.net Wed Nov 24 11:45:23 2021 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:45:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:48AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify documents, etc., right? So, instead of opening a new LIR under "SpaceNet AG", I register a new UK umbrella company under the name of "My New LIR Ltd". This one would then apply for a new RIPE membership. How do you know it's "SpaceNet AG" trying to sneak in and get more space? I've said that before: we've been there before - the "restrict multiple LIR accounts" approach leads to "those people that are in for the easy monay and do not care for anything else" will just register new companies with a new name for every new LIR. Nothing won, but database accuracy suffers, because you can't see the real owner anymore. Thus, having a checkbox on the application form might actually do more good - people will still cheat, but it won't harm the registry. Gert Doering -- 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 jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Nov 24 12:02:20 2021 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:02:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <7EE0313B-5CBE-4532-AF61-A30AE6FAAB88@consulintel.es> If it is a new company and "not related" to the previous one, no way to verify the "cheating". If it is "subsidiary", the constitution document say it. Yes, it can be bypassed, but the staff can confirm if it is being done that way in most of the cases or if it is different business units or subsidiaries of the same "original" LIR. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ?El 24/11/21 11:45, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribi?: Hi, On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:48AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify documents, etc., right? So, instead of opening a new LIR under "SpaceNet AG", I register a new UK umbrella company under the name of "My New LIR Ltd". This one would then apply for a new RIPE membership. How do you know it's "SpaceNet AG" trying to sneak in and get more space? I've said that before: we've been there before - the "restrict multiple LIR accounts" approach leads to "those people that are in for the easy monay and do not care for anything else" will just register new companies with a new name for every new LIR. Nothing won, but database accuracy suffers, because you can't see the real owner anymore. Thus, having a checkbox on the application form might actually do more good - people will still cheat, but it won't harm the registry. Gert Doering -- 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 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ ********************************************** 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 danny at danysek.cz Wed Nov 24 12:13:46 2021 From: danny at danysek.cz (Daniel Suchy) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:13:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: <7EE0313B-5CBE-4532-AF61-A30AE6FAAB88@consulintel.es> References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> <7EE0313B-5CBE-4532-AF61-A30AE6FAAB88@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <980b406c-6e84-d3b6-dfea-2a09fb18c9c8@danysek.cz> RIPE NCC service region contains ~75 countries. Each country has somewhat different rules for company registration. And of course, owners of these companies also can come outside of this region. Even in real bussiness is often hard to track real owner of particular organisation nor links between multiple organisations. No, it isn't easy to track this. And it will be very expensive. - Daniel On 11/24/21 12:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > If it is a new company and "not related" to the previous one, no way to verify the "cheating". If it is "subsidiary", the constitution document say it. > > Yes, it can be bypassed, but the staff can confirm if it is being done that way in most of the cases or if it is different business units or subsidiaries of the same "original" LIR. > From ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at Wed Nov 24 12:20:23 2021 From: ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at (Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:20:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hello! I have been considering different ideas how to implement a good system. That improves the current resource-distribution system. Because i think we can all agree that we should only implement changes that provide a significant improvement over the current situation. Sadly i have failed to find language that would achieve the goal. Lets try define some scenarios and clearly outline what we are trying to solve and what the side-effects are. To me it appears the "issue" at hand is that some members feel that new LIRs will suffer from a reduced chance to recieve a /24 in the future. *) Auction mode suggestion: Realistically, this means, that in the short term this will disrupt the "aftermarket", but i do not think the amount of requests will go down. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. As its more convienient and represents less "risk" than a transaction via broker. *) Only new members can request a /24 This instantly you down the road of evaluating and clawing for proof/documentation without a good method of verification. Lets face the fact that its easy to spin off new businesses. So instead of the "main company" sending the request, now you get an influx of newly formed companies (ie a LLC creats 5 LLCs for sub parts of its business, maybe one per location?). Are any of those "non legimiate"? How do you define a verification process for that (asset based? if yes, what if they hold colocation contracts+server+router hardware"?....) If we severely limit based on company ownership, or,.. then we quickly go down the path of "free will" assignments vs an exactly defined process/path. Alternativly: all i see is a lot of database polution without any real value being added. ..... If we cannot find language to guarantee a clear guideline for new assignments, where the positive effects outway the negative consequences, then: I think we should just accept the fact that we will likely not improve the current situation. Especially in the context of the current state of things, where a few years down the road, there will be no alternative to said "aftermarket". Regards Sebastian Graf JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg writes: > I don't think this will work and it not fair. > > Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from > exisiting members. > > > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 23/11/21 21:53, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Wolfgang Zenker" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de zenker at punkt.de> escribi?: > > Greetings, > > in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of > the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with > multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has > increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no > longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for > blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to market > value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for > creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. > The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first IPv4 > block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address hoarders, > defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. > > I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: > - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. > - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an > amount that is not visible to the other bidders. > - highest bid wins. > > Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because > they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market > without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on > the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold addresses > in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly > quarantined address block to start their business. > > > Regards, > Wolfgang Zenker > -- > punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: > -100 > .infrastructure info at punkt.de > https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ > Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian > Stein > D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or > change your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ From david at xtom.com Wed Nov 24 12:21:15 2021 From: david at xtom.com (David Guo) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 11:21:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: <980b406c-6e84-d3b6-dfea-2a09fb18c9c8@danysek.cz> References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> <7EE0313B-5CBE-4532-AF61-A30AE6FAAB88@consulintel.es> <980b406c-6e84-d3b6-dfea-2a09fb18c9c8@danysek.cz> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, RIPE NCC service all over the world, even if the company is registered our of RIPE region, they can still apply for LIR. Regards, Guo -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg On Behalf Of Daniel Suchy via address-policy-wg Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 7:14 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Cc: Daniel Suchy Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions RIPE NCC service region contains ~75 countries. Each country has somewhat different rules for company registration. And of course, owners of these companies also can come outside of this region. Even in real bussiness is often hard to track real owner of particular organisation nor links between multiple organisations. No, it isn't easy to track this. And it will be very expensive. - Daniel On 11/24/21 12:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > If it is a new company and "not related" to the previous one, no way to verify the "cheating". If it is "subsidiary", the constitution document say it. > > Yes, it can be bypassed, but the staff can confirm if it is being done that way in most of the cases or if it is different business units or subsidiaries of the same "original" LIR. > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From arash_mpc at parsun.com Wed Nov 24 12:25:30 2021 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 22:25:30 +1100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> Message-ID: An existing member can register a new entity to apply as a new member. And it is legally a different entity and no one can stop them from getting a new membership, and a new /24... We have been here before... Regards, Arash On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, 21:30 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg, < address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > I don't think this will work and it not fair. > > Those resources should be provided only to new-entrants not new-LIRs from > exisiting members. > > > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 23/11/21 21:53, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Wolfgang Zenker" < > address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de zenker at punkt.de> escribi?: > > Greetings, > > in todays WG session Marco Schmidt pointed out that more than half of > the /24s allocated from the waiting list pool go to members with > multiple LIRs. The number of newly created LIRs eligible for a /24 has > increased a lot in recent months, to the point where requests can no > longer be filled from the available pool but new LIRs have to wait for > blocks coming out of quarantine. This change appears to be due to > market > value for IPv4 blocks being now significantly larger than the cost for > creating a new LIR and maintaining it for the two year holding period. > The result of this is that newcomers have no easy access to a first > IPv4 > block but have to wait in line together with multi-LIR address > hoarders, > defeating the purpose of the waiting list policy. > > I suggest to replace the waiting list with the following system: > - /24s becoming available are put to an auction. > - every interested member organisation (NOT: LIR) can make a bid of an > amount that is not visible to the other bidders. > - highest bid wins. > > Expected result would be less requests from address hoarders because > they could get address blocks for a similar price on the open market > without the additional overhead of creating a new member. Newcomers on > the other hand would have to become members to be able to hold > addresses > in the first place, and can use the auction to get access to a properly > quarantined address block to start their business. > > > Regards, > Wolfgang Zenker > -- > punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 > Fax: -100 > .infrastructure info at punkt.de > https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ > Kaiserallee 13a CEO: J?rgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, > Fabian Stein > D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285 > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or > change your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at Wed Nov 24 12:32:16 2021 From: ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at (Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 12:32:16 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hello! After writing my previous reply to this conversation, i had a random thought. Maybe as an alternative to complex, overreaching and probably impossible to enforce policy,... we could go the opposite route. - How many /24s can are still avalible for allocation? - How many LIR accounts are there currently? If there is avaliblity to cover it, we could just give every current LIR a /24 and instantly "remove" the "pool". Thus same chances for everyone and there is no more discussion. Weird Other thought: If we dont have enough /24's to cover, or we end with an uneven number remaining, we could do a lottery. It all just leads to where we will get eventually anyhow. Regards Sebastian Graf Gert Doering writes: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:48AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address- > policy-wg wrote: > > Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify documents, > etc., right? > > So, instead of opening a new LIR under "SpaceNet AG", I register a new > UK umbrella company under the name of "My New LIR Ltd". > > This one would then apply for a new RIPE membership. > > How do you know it's "SpaceNet AG" trying to sneak in and get more space? > > > I've said that before: we've been there before - the "restrict multiple > LIR accounts" approach leads to "those people that are in for the easy > monay and do not care for anything else" will just register new companies > with a new name for every new LIR. Nothing won, but database accuracy > suffers, because you can't see the real owner anymore. > > Thus, having a checkbox on the application form might actually do more > good - people will still cheat, but it won't harm the registry. > > Gert Doering > -- > 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 From me at cynthia.re Wed Nov 24 13:07:31 2021 From: me at cynthia.re (=?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:07:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Suggestion to replace IPv4 waiting list with auctions In-Reply-To: References: <66617C9A-23E1-4880-85F7-2F9186EF2AA8@consulintel.es> <54580D3E-770F-482F-AB5D-F1ECFC5899BA@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hi, I think just handing out all or doing a lottery is a really bad idea. I think the best way is simply to realize that there is no perfect or even particularly good way to deal with this and the current system is probably the best we can reasonably have. The true solution will be more IPv6 implementation. -Cynthia On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:32 PM Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf < ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at> wrote: > Hello! > > After writing my previous reply to this conversation, i had a random > thought. Maybe as an alternative to complex, overreaching and probably > impossible to enforce policy,... we could go the opposite route. > > - How many /24s can are still avalible for allocation? > - How many LIR accounts are there currently? > > If there is avaliblity to cover it, we could just give every current LIR a > /24 > and instantly "remove" the "pool". Thus same chances for everyone and > there > is no more discussion. > > Weird Other thought: > If we dont have enough /24's to cover, or we end with an uneven number > remaining, we could do a lottery. > > > It all just leads to where we will get eventually anyhow. > > Regards > Sebastian Graf > > Gert Doering writes: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:38:48AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via > address- > > policy-wg wrote: > > > Yes, the people can try to cheat, but that's why the NCC verify > documents, > > etc., right? > > > > So, instead of opening a new LIR under "SpaceNet AG", I register a new > > UK umbrella company under the name of "My New LIR Ltd". > > > > This one would then apply for a new RIPE membership. > > > > How do you know it's "SpaceNet AG" trying to sneak in and get more space? > > > > > > I've said that before: we've been there before - the "restrict multiple > > LIR accounts" approach leads to "those people that are in for the easy > > monay and do not care for anything else" will just register new companies > > with a new name for every new LIR. Nothing won, but database accuracy > > suffers, because you can't see the real owner anymore. > > > > Thus, having a checkbox on the application form might actually do more > > good - people will still cheat, but it won't harm the registry. > > > > Gert Doering > > -- > > 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 > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mschmidt at ripe.net Wed Nov 24 14:02:05 2021 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:02:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] do we need a policy for avoiding "multiple unjustified LIRs"? In-Reply-To: <15B1CB49-F46D-4690-8090-BC07828D5899@consulintel.es> References: <15B1CB49-F46D-4690-8090-BC07828D5899@consulintel.es> Message-ID: Hello Jordi, Thank you for your question. The policy proposal 2018-01, "Organisation-LIR Clarification in IPv6 Policy" agreed upon by the Address Policy WG gave a clear mandate to the RIPE NCC to allocate IPv6 resources per LIR, regardless of whether it is a single or multiple LIR account. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-01 As I pointed out yesterday during my presentation, the collection of IPv6 allocations via multiple LIR accounts appears to conflict with some of the goals of the IPv6 policy. However, as was generally agreed yesterday during the Address Policy WG session, it might be time to review these goals. This could be one way forward to provide guidance to the RIPE NCC about how we should handle requests for additional IPv6 allocations from parties that already have large IPv6 blocks and no clear reason for requesting additional IPv6 allocations. Regarding your suggestion concerning opening multiple LIR accounts, this would be something for the RIPE NCC membership and the Executive Board to discuss. As you indicated, defining reasonable boundaries between justified and unjustified might be a challenge. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Assistant Manager Registry Services RIPE NCC On 24/11/2021 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote: > Not acting is a path for abuse and stockpiling. Not fair and we must resolve it avoiding it as much as possible. > > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 23/11/21 11:59, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Staff" escribi?: > > Hello everybody, > > Of cause no. > > That will not help. always possible to avoid. > Doing more complex polices is not good way. NCC had already lot of > issues with that. > Does any body remember how they asked to use email with the name to use > in their database and people should change emails lot of times to > sutisfy NCC.... We did a lot of noise and NCC canceled it. Brr... > > If people request space - then they need it and they select this way to > get it with NCC. > > This is normal process. No rush here. NCC should work as usual. > > Yury > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ > > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net Mon Nov 29 10:15:53 2021 From: Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net (Adrian Bolster) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:15:53 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling Message-ID: <32e3aa1f303f49d5b428eeff40ab63c2@purebroadband.net> Good day to you! All important information you asked for you can find in the document via the link below. 1)dancetvshow.com/laboriosamporro/quiadolorum-4312207 2)meralawfirm.com/inventoreodit/sedeos-4312207 The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jetten Raymond Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31 To: Jake Brander , Gert Doering , Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi Jake, Thanks for your comment. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough. In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts.. Best Regards, Ray One of the IPv6 wg co chairs https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6 Hanki Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jake Brander Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM To: Gert Doering ; Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago. The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available.. How do we get people to actually use it? All the best, Jake Brander President | Brander Group Inc. O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266 jake at brandergroup.net | www.brandergroup.net Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality. > > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education. > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy. > > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :) This! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 For Internal Use Only -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net Mon Nov 29 11:13:14 2021 From: Adrian.Bolster at purebroadband.net (Adrian Bolster) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:13:14 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling In-Reply-To: <32e3aa1f303f49d5b428eeff40ab63c2@purebroadband.net> References: <32e3aa1f303f49d5b428eeff40ab63c2@purebroadband.net> Message-ID: Hi, Apologies for the below email. Our systems team are looking into this now. Please disregard the obvious spam. Regards, Adrian. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:18, Adrian Bolster wrote: ? Good day to you! All important information you asked for you can find in the document via the link below. 1)dancetvshow.com/laboriosamporro/quiadolorum-4312207 2)meralawfirm.com/inventoreodit/sedeos-4312207 The stats on adoption are far more interesting when you look at them by country: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption That 34% is concentrated in a quite small number of countries -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jetten Raymond Date: Sunday, 31 October 2021 at 17:31 To: Jake Brander , Gert Doering , Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi Jake, Thanks for your comment. According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html about 34 % of the internet users that access google use IPv6, and i fully agree that its not enough. In case you have some ideas on how to improve this miserable amount i welcome you to the IPv6 working group mailing list and share your thoughts.. Best Regards, Ray One of the IPv6 wg co chairs https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6 Hanki Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Jake Brander Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 8:59:41 PM To: Gert Doering ; Sander Steffann Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Stockpiling It seems like stock piling IPv6 is similar that what occurred with IPv4 a long time ago. The only difference is nodbody is using IPv6 and there is an abundance of it available.. How do we get people to actually use it? All the best, Jake Brander President | Brander Group Inc. O: (702) 560-5616 x700 | M: (310) 595-6266 jake at brandergroup.net | www.brandergroup.net Featured in Inc. Magazine & Ranked #6 on Inc. 5000 ? Read More On 10/29/21, 8:04 AM, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 04:38:46PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: > If this is indeed the reason I see no problem with it. That's just operational reality. > > If there is some misunderstanding causing LIRs to accumulate many IPv6 allocations then we can look at better education. > And if there is some malign reason for it, then we can look at changing the policy. > > I think we need to understand the symptoms better to be able work on the cure :) This! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 For Internal Use Only To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at vegoda.org Mon Nov 29 17:51:21 2021 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:51:21 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Review of IPv6 Policy Goals Message-ID: Dear Address Policy WG, This is the promised message to begin a review of the IPv6 Policy Goals, following the introduction of the subject during our session at RIPE 83. Several people have already spoken up and stated their intent to participate. We?d like to invite everyone interested to respond to the questions below, so we can gauge the WG?s interest in this subject and plan the next steps on that basis. For those who were unable to attend the session, the slides can be found here: https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/37-RIPE-83-APWG-IPv6-Policy-Goals-draft-2.pdf And the video recording is here: https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/644 You can find the goals in full in our current IPv6 policy document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738#3 There are two main motivations for this discussion. Firstly, the world around us has changed over the 20 years since the goals were integrated into the policy. Secondly, the RIPE NCC is guided by these goals when it implements policy. If there is some degree of executive discretion on how to implement a policy then the RIPE NCC's people will do their best to implement a policy in a way that achieves the overall policy goals. This means that any changes to the IPv6 policy goals could have two impacts: 1) The RIPE NCC might adjust its implementation of one or more existing policies so that those implementations work towards the updated goals. 2) People in the RIPE community might identify a need for policy changes and initiate a policy discussion. The specific questions we'd like to ask the community to discuss are: A) Are all of the goals still relevant? B) Should the priority or wording of goals change? C) Does our changing world require new goals? Responses in support of keeping the goals unchanged are just as welcome as responses indicating that a change is necessary. We look forward to reading your thoughts. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs