From steven.bakker at ams-ix.net Mon Jul 3 18:46:48 2023 From: steven.bakker at ams-ix.net (Steven Bakker) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 16:46:48 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> , <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: Hi, Although I agree that the 50% number is problematic, the explanation by Marco is sufficient for me to vote "aye" on this proposal. Yes, we should probably fix this at some point, but I agree with Matthias that, given Marco's explanation, this should not be part of this particular round of review. Cheers, Steven On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 09:58 +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber via address- policy-wg wrote: > > > 1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of > > 50% utilisation > > 2. what is a "special circumstance"? > > The proposal does not modify existing numbers (50%) or the "special > circumstances". Both are in the current policy already (see old > policy text 6.1 .4). I think the changes you propose should be done > in a separate policy proposal as they are an addition to this policy > proposal rather than a change. > > Nevertheless RIPE has clarified how they handle the 50% issue > currently (see Marco Schmidt's mail from mid May): > > > When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks > > that > > the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. > > If > > their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more > > than > > a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they > > postpone their request. > > Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I > hope that answers open questions. > > Regards, > Matthias > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber > Team Lead Research and Development > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) > phone: +49 69 1730902 141 > mobile: +49 171 3836036 > fax: +49 69 4056 2716 > e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net > web: > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.de-cix.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteven.bakker%40ams-ix.net%7C0baf6acaa3a04e5ebb6408db79508c78%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638237159103038008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGK%2BWwN4RXt1p6Fsa%2FjUCwiUQdtvrBVWYenKY3AekaE%3D&reserved=0 > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert > Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 > Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne > > ________________________________________ > Von: address-policy-wg im > Auftrag von Cynthia Revstr?m via address-policy-wg > > Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Juni 2023 00:55:35 > An: Nick Hilliard > Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP > IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) > > I agree with Nick here regarding 1. > These magic numbers should really be fixed. > > -Cynthia > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55?PM Nick Hilliard > wrote: > > > > Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 29/06/2023 15:19: > > > > It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is > > simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. > > > > > > this version of the document hasn't addressed the problems I raised > > on April 26. The authors need to give some consideration about what > > might be the best approach to fixing them: > > > > 1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of > > 50% utilisation > > 2. what is a "special circumstance"? > > > > I don't believe that the document should progress until these > > issues are addressed. > > > > Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Mon Jul 3 20:08:21 2023 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 20:08:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <75477ca6-f305-2378-584d-a4af060b8c75@de-cix.net> +1 to what Matthias, Tore, and Steven said. So, I also reiterate my support for moving 2023-01 forward. Arnold On 03.07.2023 18:46, Steven Bakker via address-policy-wg wrote: > Although I agree that the 50% number is problematic, the explanation by > Marco is sufficient for me to vote "aye" on this proposal. > > Yes, we should probably fix this at some point, but I agree with > Matthias that, given Marco's explanation, this should not be part of > this particular round of review. > > Cheers, > Steven > > On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 09:58 +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber via > address-policy-wg wrote: >> >>> 1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of 50% >>> utilisation >>> 2. what is a "special circumstance"? >> >> The proposal does not modify existing numbers (50%) or the "special >> circumstances". Both are in the current policy already (see old policy >> text 6.1 .4). I think the changes you propose should be done in a >> separate policy proposal as they are an addition to this policy >> proposal rather than a change. >> >> Nevertheless RIPE has clarified how they handle the 50% issue >> currently (see Marco Schmidt's mail from mid May): >> >>> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that >>> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If >>> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than >>> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they >>> postpone their request. >> >> Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope >> that answers open questions. >> >> Regards, >> Matthias >> >> -- >> Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber >> Team Lead Research and Development >> ------------------------------ >> DE-CIX Management GmbH >> Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) >> phone: +49 69 1730902 141 >> mobile: +49 171 3836036 >> fax: +49 69 4056 2716 >> e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net >> >> web: >> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.de-cix.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteven.bakker%40ams-ix.net%7C0baf6acaa3a04e5ebb6408db79508c78%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638237159103038008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGK%2BWwN4RXt1p6Fsa%2FjUCwiUQdtvrBVWYenKY3AekaE%3D&reserved=0 >> ------------------------------ >> DE-CIX Management GmbH >> Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert >> Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 >> Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne >> >> ________________________________________ >> Von: address-policy-wg > > im Auftrag von Cynthia >> Revstr?m via address-policy-wg > > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Juni 2023 00:55:35 >> An: Nick Hilliard >> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group >> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP >> IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) >> >> I agree with Nick here regarding 1. >> These magic numbers should really be fixed. >> >> -Cynthia >> >> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55?PM Nick Hilliard > > wrote: >>> >>> Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 29/06/2023 15:19: >>> >>> It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is >>> simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. >>> >>> >>> this version of the document hasn't addressed the problems I raised >>> on April 26. The authors need to give some consideration about what >>> might be the best approach to fixing them: >>> >>> 1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of 50% >>> utilisation >>> 2. what is a "special circumstance"? >>> >>> I don't believe that the document should progress until these issues >>> are addressed. >>> >>> Nick > > -- Arnold Nipper Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystra?e 12 | 60314 Frankfurt a.M. | Germany Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 arnold.nipper at de-cix.net | www.de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Ivaylo Ivanov und Sebastian Seifert Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 Want to work at DE-CIX: https://de-cix.net/en/about-de-cix/careers -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nick at foobar.org Tue Jul 4 20:18:55 2023 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 19:18:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58: >> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that >> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If >> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than >> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they >> postpone their request. > > Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions. Hi Matthias Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says: > After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned? If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there? Nick From matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net Tue Jul 4 20:33:45 2023 From: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net (Matthias Wichtlhuber) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 18:33:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net>, Message-ID: Hi Nick, Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list. Regards, Matthias -- Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber Team Lead Research and Development ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) phone: +49 69 1730902 141 mobile: +49 171 3836036 fax: +49 69 4056 2716 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net web: www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ DE-CIX Management GmbH Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne ________________________________________ Von: Nick Hilliard Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 An: Matthias Wichtlhuber Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58: >> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that >> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If >> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than >> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they >> postpone their request. > > Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions. Hi Matthias Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says: > After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned? If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there? Nick From adallara at ripe.net Wed Jul 5 16:52:03 2023 From: adallara at ripe.net (Angela Dall'Ara) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 16:52:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: Dear Nick, The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that /?After one year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined"/ is implemented the way Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size. This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] on proposal 2013-03 was: /?It is the RIPE NCC?s understanding that Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least 50% of the assignment.??/ The requirements for returning the unused space to the IXP pool are described in paragraph 6.1.5 of the current policy: /?IXPs holding other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they are seeking a larger assignment), and any IPv4 space assigned from this pool that is no longer in use, must be returned to the pool within 180 days of disuse or a new assignment.?/ I hope this helps. Kind regards, Angela Dall?Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03 [4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03#impact-analysis On 04/07/2023 20:33, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list. > > Regards, > Matthias > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber > Team Lead Research and Development > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) > phone: +49 69 1730902 141 > mobile: +49 171 3836036 > fax: +49 69 4056 2716 > e-mail:matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net > web:www.de-cix.net > ------------------------------ > DE-CIX Management GmbH > Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert > Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 > Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne > > ________________________________________ > Von: Nick Hilliard > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 > An: Matthias Wichtlhuber > Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group > Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) > > Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58: >>> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that >>> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If >>> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than >>> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they >>> postpone their request. >> Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions. > Hi Matthias > > Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says: > >> After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. > If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will > the assignment be deassigned? > > If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE > NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to > deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a > practical slop factor in there? > > Nick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tore at fud.no Thu Jul 6 13:04:56 2023 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 13:04:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: <7672810d5c42935a111016d1fd3b873d31fe32f4.camel@fud.no> On Wed, 2023-07-05 at 16:52 +0200, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > ?The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that ?After one > year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, > unless special circumstances are defined" is implemented the way > Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an > estimated projection, which must be supported by the documentation > provided by the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the > minimum size. > ?? > ?This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy > document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the > need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] > on proposal 2013-03 was: ?It is the RIPE NCC?s understanding that > Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on > documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated > one year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at > least 50% of the assignment.?? Hi, I want to also point out here that the ?50% after one year? requirement as well as the ?special circumstances? exception were not novel concepts first introduced by 2013-03, they were simply moved (and slightly simplified) from the general section of the policy into the IXP-specific section, as the need evaluation was being removed from the former. To be clear, it was our (the 2013-03 authors) intention to leave these mechanisms essentially as-is for IXP assignments specifically. The old pre-2013-03 policy (which covered both IXP and non-IXP assignments) read as as follows: ?6.3 Utilisation Rates Assignments' immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined.? See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599 I have not attempted to figure out exactly when this language was introduced, but I suspect it has been around for a long time. Tore From leo at vegoda.org Thu Jul 6 16:08:54 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 07:08:54 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: <7672810d5c42935a111016d1fd3b873d31fe32f4.camel@fud.no> References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> <7672810d5c42935a111016d1fd3b873d31fe32f4.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:05, Tore Anderson wrote: [...] > The old pre-2013-03 policy (which covered both IXP and non-IXP > assignments) read as as follows: > > ?6.3 Utilisation Rates > > Assignments' immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the > assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the > space unless special circumstances are defined.? > > See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599 > > I have not attempted to figure out exactly when this language was > introduced, but I suspect it has been around for a long time. It goes back to at least RFC 2050, published in November 1996. Kind regards, Leo From erik at bais.name Wed Jul 12 10:26:15 2023 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:26:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Dear AP-WG members, Please be aware that the Last Call for Comments of the min. size for IPv4 temp assignments is about to end .. ( June 13 2023 ? aka tomorrow ) As chairs we would like to receive a bit more comments / support during last call, as it has been silent .. To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but also for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again in the Last Call phase as well. Have a nice day, Erik Bais On behalf of the AP-WG Chairs, co-Chair From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Karen Hung Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 10:07 To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) Dear colleagues, Proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" is now in Concluding Phase. This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size to a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by the End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 13 July 2023 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs for final consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > before 13 July 2023. Kind regards, Karen Hung On behalf of Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Wed Jul 12 11:08:43 2023 From: wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 09:08:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Message-ID: I support this proposal. -- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert | Trade Registry: AG Cologne, HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net > On 12. Jul 2023, at 10:26, Erik Bais wrote: > > To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but also for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. > So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again in the Last Call phase as well. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Wed Jul 12 11:34:16 2023 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:34:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Message-ID: I support this proposal. Greetings, and enjoy summertime Arnold On 12.07.2023 10:26, Erik Bais wrote: > Dear AP-WG members, > > Please be aware that the Last Call for Comments of the min. size for > IPv4 temp assignments is about to end ..? ( June 13 2023 ? aka tomorrow ) > > As chairs we would like to receive a bit more comments / support during > last call, as it has been silent .. > > To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but also > for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. > > So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again in > the Last Call phase as well. > > Have a nice day, > > Erik Bais > > On behalf of the AP-WG Chairs, co-Chair > > *From: *address-policy-wg on behalf > of Karen Hung > *Date: *Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 10:07 > *To: *"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > *Subject: *[address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum > Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) > > Dear colleagues, > > Proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" is now > in Concluding Phase. > > This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size to a > /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by the > End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to > justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. > > The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and > the proposal will now move to Last Call. > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present > well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases > and wish to oppose the proposal. > Any objection must be made by 13 July 2023 and must be supported by an > explanation. > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the > proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs > for final consensus. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > > before > 13 July 2023. > > > Kind regards, > Karen Hung > On behalf of Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- Arnold Nipper Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystra?e 12 | 60314 Frankfurt a.M. | Germany Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 arnold.nipper at de-cix.net | www.de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Ivaylo Ivanov und Sebastian Seifert Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 Want to work at DE-CIX: https://de-cix.net/en/about-de-cix/careers -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nick at foobar.org Wed Jul 12 12:43:33 2023 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:43:33 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Message-ID: <2dda8160-57df-8f60-b060-c986f4fac819@foobar.org> The proposal looks ok to me. Nick Erik Bais wrote on 12/07/2023 09:26: > > Dear AP-WG members, > > Please be aware that the Last Call for Comments of the min. size for > IPv4 temp assignments is about to end ..? ( June 13 2023 ? aka tomorrow ) > > As chairs we would like to receive a bit more comments / support > during last call, as it has been silent .. > > To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but also > for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. > > So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again in > the Last Call phase as well. > > Have a nice day, > > Erik Bais > > On behalf of the AP-WG Chairs, co-Chair > > *From: *address-policy-wg on > behalf of Karen Hung > *Date: *Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 10:07 > *To: *"address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > *Subject: *[address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum > Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) > > Dear colleagues, > > Proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" is now > in Concluding Phase. > > This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size to > a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by > the End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to > justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. > > The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached > and the proposal will now move to Last Call. > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present > well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases > and wish to oppose the proposal. > Any objection must be made by 13 July 2023 and must be supported by an > explanation. > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the > proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG > co-chairs for final consensus. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > > > before 13 July 2023. > > > Kind regards, > Karen Hung > On behalf of Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Wed Jul 12 12:50:12 2023 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 03:50:12 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2dda8160-57df-8f60-b060-c986f4fac819@foobar.org> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> <2dda8160-57df-8f60-b060-c986f4fac819@foobar.org> Message-ID: > The proposal looks ok to me. +1 i could nit pick, but will refrain. ramdy From me at cynthia.re Wed Jul 12 14:10:27 2023 From: me at cynthia.re (=?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:10:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Message-ID: I have minor editorial nitpicks but I still support this proposal in the current form. -Cynthia On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:26?AM Erik Bais wrote: > > Dear AP-WG members, > > > > Please be aware that the Last Call for Comments of the min. size for IPv4 temp assignments is about to end .. ( June 13 2023 ? aka tomorrow ) > > > > As chairs we would like to receive a bit more comments / support during last call, as it has been silent .. > > > > To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but also for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. > > So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again in the Last Call phase as well. > > > > Have a nice day, > > Erik Bais > > On behalf of the AP-WG Chairs, co-Chair > > > > From: address-policy-wg on behalf of Karen Hung > Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2023 at 10:07 > To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) > > > > Dear colleagues, > > Proposal 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments" is now in Concluding Phase. > > This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size to a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by the End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. > > The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. > Any objection must be made by 13 July 2023 and must be supported by an explanation. > If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs for final consensus. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to before 13 July 2023. > > > Kind regards, > Karen Hung > On behalf of Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From tore at fud.no Wed Jul 12 15:30:06 2023 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:30:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> Message-ID: <0820da835baf3fa0c8c4a1c394f2567b0985f325.camel@fud.no> * Erik Bais > Please be aware that the Last Call for Comments of the min. size for > IPv4 temp assignments is about to end ..? ( June 13 2023 ? aka > tomorrow ) > ? > As chairs we would like to receive a bit more comments / support > during last call, as it has been silent ..? > ? > To reach consensus, we are not only looking for objections .. but > also for support of the community and this is a request to speak up. > So even if you voiced support in previous phases, let us know again > in the Last Call phase as well Hi Erik, According to ripe-781 section 2.4 the Last Call phase is, quote, ?mainly intended for those who missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal?. It goes on to state that ?if there is no feedback from the community at this stage, this is likely to be regarded as consensus and it will mean the previous call of rough consensus from the WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase still holds?. Silence is consent, in other words. I have therefore intentionally not commented on this proposal during Last Call. Tore From nick at foobar.org Wed Jul 12 17:30:58 2023 From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:30:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) In-Reply-To: References: <68428441-8bd4-5fe8-496f-12755af4ad71@ripe.net> <57f471ab-df73-a545-8005-5b7426fe22a3@foobar.org> <59f1f1b386924ed6a1e43a698cad00c8@de-cix.net> Message-ID: Hi Angela, thanks for your reply - this addresses all the remaining concerns I had about the proposal. Nick Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 05/07/2023 15:52: > Dear Nick, > > The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that /?After one > year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, > unless special circumstances are defined"/ is implemented the way > Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated > projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by > the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size. > > This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy > document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the > need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] > on proposal 2013-03 was: /?It is the RIPE NCC?s understanding that > Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on > documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one > year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least > 50% of the assignment.??/ > > The requirements for returning the unused space to the IXP pool are > described in paragraph 6.1.5 of the current policy: /?IXPs holding > other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they are seeking a > larger assignment), and any IPv4 space assigned from this pool that is > no longer in use, must be returned to the pool within 180 days of > disuse or a new assignment.?/ > > I hope this helps. > > Kind regards, > Angela Dall?Ara > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 > [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03 > [4] > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03#impact-analysis > On 04/07/2023 20:33, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list. >> >> Regards, >> Matthias >> >> -- >> Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber >> Team Lead Research and Development >> ------------------------------ >> DE-CIX Management GmbH >> Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany) >> phone: +49 69 1730902 141 >> mobile: +49 171 3836036 >> fax: +49 69 4056 2716 >> e-mail:matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net >> web:www.de-cix.net >> ------------------------------ >> DE-CIX Management GmbH >> Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert >> Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135 >> Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne >> >> ________________________________________ >> Von: Nick Hilliard >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 >> An: Matthias Wichtlhuber >> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group >> Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) >> >> Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58: >>>> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that >>>> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If >>>> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than >>>> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they >>>> postpone their request. >>> Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions. >> Hi Matthias >> >> Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says: >> >>> After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. >> If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will >> the assignment be deassigned? >> >> If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE >> NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to >> deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a >> practical slop factor in there? >> >> Nick >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jul 12 23:24:57 2023 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 23:24:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Last Call for Comments (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <0820da835baf3fa0c8c4a1c394f2567b0985f325.camel@fud.no> References: <2C955E79-9CE5-4B14-97AB-BA316ED53F4A@bais.name> <0820da835baf3fa0c8c4a1c394f2567b0985f325.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: <458D8291-3B65-471C-9508-29C5BEEF52B1@steffann.nl> Hi, > Silence is consent, in other words. I have therefore intentionally not > commented on this proposal during Last Call. +1 to this, that?s how Gert and I always implemented it, and how I would like it to remain. Last call is a ?speak now, or forever hold your peace? phase :) Cheers! Sander From leo at vegoda.org Tue Jul 18 00:35:29 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:35:29 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus - 2023-02 - Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments Message-ID: Dear Working Group, No objections were raised during the Last Call phase. The community has achieved a consensus. The RIPE NCC can proceed with implementation. Our thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs From elvis at v4escrow.net Tue Jul 18 01:05:12 2023 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:05:12 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus - 2023-02 - Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: on behalf of the authors we also thank you Leo, co-chairs and PDO for all of your support. elvis co-author On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 15:36 Leo Vegoda wrote: > Dear Working Group, > > No objections were raised during the Last Call phase. The community > has achieved a consensus. > > The RIPE NCC can proceed with implementation. > > Our thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adallara at ripe.net Tue Jul 18 11:06:49 2023 From: adallara at ripe.net (Angela Dall'Ara) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:06:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 Proposal Accepted (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) Message-ID: <518f3b1f-d119-5063-e3d3-4b1bdc703805@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2023-02"Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments". This policy proposal aimed to setthe defaultassignment size for IPv4 temporary assignments to a /24and allow routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-801and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-801 We estimate that this proposal will take less than two weeksto fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thanks to everyone who provided input. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at vegoda.org Mon Jul 31 12:00:00 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 03:00:00 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-01 - Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26 Message-ID: Dear Working Group, The issue raised during the Review Phase was resolved. We will move the proposal to Last Call. If you missed the previous discussion and have identified an issue that has not already been resolved, please raise it. Traditionally, Last Call is four weeks. But opening a Last Call on the last day of July and closing it before the end of August might mean that some people miss this announcement. For this reason, we will hold Last Call open until the end of Friday, 8 September. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs From adallara at ripe.net Mon Jul 31 13:34:54 2023 From: adallara at ripe.net (Angela Dall'Ara) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:34:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Last Call for Comments (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) Message-ID: <2e790994-96be-9245-b23e-2d48c6afa8d2@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Proposal 2023-01, "Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal modifies the default size of IPv4 assignments for IXPs from a /24 to /26 and clarifies the return of the assignments previously issued for their IXP peering LAN. The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 8 September 2023 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs for final consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to before 8 September 2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall?Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC From adallara at ripe.net Mon Jul 31 14:20:38 2023 From: adallara at ripe.net (Angela Dall'Ara) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:20:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] =?utf-8?q?Policy_Proposal_Implemented=3A_202?= =?utf-8?q?3-02_=E2=80=9CMinimum_size_for_IPv4_Temporary_Assignments?= =?utf-8?b?4oCd?= Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have fully implemented the RIPE Policy Proposal 2023-02 ?Minimum size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments?. This policy sets the default assignment size for IPv4 temporary assignments to a /24 and allows routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes. The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 The RIPE Document, "Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-801 Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC