From gert at space.net Wed Mar 1 11:18:20 2023 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 11:18:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:26:06AM +0100, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size for > temporary assignments 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. There seems to be not great interest in this proposal, but this might be because it mainly affects network researchers ("I need a few addresses but it needs to be a routable /24") who might not be following the APWG activities... Speaking for myself, with some understanding on network testing / BGP announcement testing, etc., I support this proposal. These are temporary addresses, so the largest risk is "the NCC runs out of temporary /24s for a while, and someone else can not do their experiments needing a /24" - but without that change, neither can. Gert Doering -- end user -- 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 adallara at ripe.net Mon Mar 6 09:43:45 2023 From: adallara at ripe.net (Angela Dall'Ara) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:43:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - New Version Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) Message-ID: <281efcf3-c3d2-b8c1-f914-b4969ec12b04@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, RIPE policy proposal 2023-01, "Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26" is now available for discussion again. The goal of this proposal is to reduce 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. Following the last round of discussion, this proposal has been updated and it is now at version 2.0. The main difference from version 1.0 is that IXPs are not required to implement the exchange of IPv4 routing information over IPv6 before requesting an assignment larger than a /24. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 4 April 2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From massimo at ntt.net Tue Mar 7 20:12:55 2023 From: massimo at ntt.net (Massimo Candela) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:12:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62d6b343-3976-69ab-7eb6-448d85b9cce4@ntt.net> Hi all, I added in cc the MAT mailing list, which is frequented by researchers. I believe that is the right audience for this proposal. @MAT: Support for this proposal should be expressed before this Friday (March 10). See proposal below. Reply by keeping both list. @Addres-policy: I support this proposal. ------- I also mention below a variation of this proposal, which could be it's own proposal/thread (suggestions welcome): There should be an easy way to do "temporary assignments" (which may or may not be the correct term in this case) to researchers/developers, starting from address space of a company which is "sponsoring" the research. The key part of what I would like to have is the possibility to provide somebody with access to LIR portal services but limited to a specific subset of my resources. In general, a company is not going to support a research/experiment by providing indiscriminate access to the LIR portal. Creating a new LIR or transferring prefixes is not a plausible solution in this context. Also, I believe this would remove the need for an approval procedure from the RIPE NCC side: (1) if the address space used is of a company, there is less need to validate the research project motivations; and (2) the company "sponsoring" is also the one responsible for the address space. Ciao, Massimo On 27/02/2023 16:44, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi, > > We've not had any feedback on this proposal yet. > > As a reminder, this proposal would set "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." > > Support for the proposal, or arguments against it are welcome. > > Many thanks, > > Leo Vegoda > Address Policy WG co-chair > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 00:26, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary >> Assignments" >> is now available for discussion. >> >> This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size for >> temporary assignments 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. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 >> >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this >> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide >> feedback to the proposers. >> >> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of >> the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. >> >> The PDP document can be found at: >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 10 March 2023. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Angela Dall'Ara >> 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 kononykhin.m at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 17:06:23 2023 From: kononykhin.m at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0JzQuNGF0LDQudC70L4g0JrQvtC90L7QvdC40YXRltC9?=) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 18:06:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal for Voluntary Transfer Lock Message-ID: Hello I hope the new 'Voluntary Transfer Lock' does not require a notarized statement as 'Voluntary Registry Lock' It should be a fast working tool. And it should freeze all current transfer requests -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at vegoda.org Wed Mar 8 17:10:37 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 08:10:37 -0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal for Voluntary Transfer Lock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear ??????? ?????????, The Voluntary Transfer Lock proposal (2023-03) is being discussed in the RIPE NCC Services Working Group. You can subscribe to that list at https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg/ Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Address Policy WG co-chair On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 08:06, ??????? ????????? wrote: > > Hello > I hope the new 'Voluntary Transfer Lock' does not require a notarized statement as 'Voluntary Registry Lock' > It should be a fast working tool. And it should freeze all current transfer requests > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From sergey at devnull.ru Wed Mar 8 17:12:19 2023 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:12:19 -0500 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal for Voluntary Transfer Lock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B0E0E79-0422-4420-BD47-B8C92170DE7F@devnull.ru> Hi Mykhailo, Do you mean like lightning switch with On/Off position? I guess there should be a voluntarily defined date for unfreeze, so it couldn't be working like you think. Unfreeze date should be defined at freeze moment. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 8. 3. 2023, at 11:06, ??????? ????????? wrote: > > Hello > I hope the new 'Voluntary Transfer Lock' does not require a notarized statement as 'Voluntary Registry Lock' > It should be a fast working tool. And it should freeze all current transfer requests > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From elvis at v4escrow.net Tue Mar 14 00:42:01 2023 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:42:01 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments) In-Reply-To: <62d6b343-3976-69ab-7eb6-448d85b9cce4@ntt.net> References: <62d6b343-3976-69ab-7eb6-448d85b9cce4@ntt.net> Message-ID: Hi Massimo, thank you for your message. Let me see if I have an answer to some of your questions/comments. See inline. On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:13 Massimo Candela wrote: > Hi all, > > > I added in cc the MAT mailing list, which is frequented by researchers. > I believe that is the right audience for this proposal. > > > @MAT: Support for this proposal should be expressed before this Friday > (March 10). See proposal below. Reply by keeping both list. > > > > @Addres-policy: I support this proposal. > > thank you for your support. > ------- > I also mention below a variation of this proposal, which could be it's > own proposal/thread (suggestions welcome): > > There should be an easy way to do "temporary assignments" (which may or > may not be the correct term in this case) to researchers/developers, > starting from address space of a company which is "sponsoring" the > research. > > > The key part of what I would like to have is the possibility to provide > somebody with access to LIR portal services but limited to a specific > subset of my resources. > > In general, a company is not going to support a research/experiment by > providing indiscriminate access to the LIR portal. Creating a new LIR or > transferring prefixes is not a plausible solution in this context. > An existing LIR can do an assignment to a researcher/developer as we speak. All assignments an LIR makes are ?temporary?, some may last a day and some may last 10 years? If you want the researcher to have access to services like RPKI, they can ask their LIR. In some cases, maybe temporary transfers could also be of use. Note that this proposal aims to update the temporary assignment proposal that is currently in place. The RIPE NCC makes these temporary assignments from a pool of IPs they have reserved specifically for this purpose. > Also, I believe this would remove the need for an approval procedure > from the RIPE NCC side: (1) if the address space used is of a company, > there is less need to validate the research project motivations; and (2) > the company "sponsoring" is also the one responsible for the address space. > I am not sure I understand what you mean by this. The NCC does not need to approve any assignments made by LIRs. The NCC will need to approve temporary assignments if the request is sent by an LIR (for an end-user) based on the current temporary assignment policy. Elvis > Ciao, > Massimo > > > On 27/02/2023 16:44, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We've not had any feedback on this proposal yet. > > > > As a reminder, this proposal would set "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." > > > > Support for the proposal, or arguments against it are welcome. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Leo Vegoda > > Address Policy WG co-chair > > > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 00:26, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > >> > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary > >> Assignments" > >> is now available for discussion. > >> > >> This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size for > >> temporary assignments 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. > >> > >> You can find the full proposal at: > >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 > >> > >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > >> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide > >> feedback to the proposers. > >> > >> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of > >> the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. > >> > >> The PDP document can be found at: > >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 > >> > >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 10 March 2023. > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Angela Dall'Ara > >> 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/ > > > > -- > > 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 leo at vegoda.org Tue Mar 21 22:47:35 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:47:35 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 policy - 2nd prioritisation and outcomes discussion webinar Message-ID: At RIPE 85 we continued a review of the IPv6 policy that began at RIPE 83. Several areas for improvement were agreed. We promised to host an inter-sessional webinar to discuss priorities and the outcomes to work towards. We held the first webinar on Monday, 20 February 2023. You can read a summary of what was discussed on RIPE Labs. A full recording and minutes are published on the interim sessions page. - https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/next-steps-in-ipv6-policy-work/ - https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ap/interim-sessions The second webinar will take place on Tuesday, 11 April at 13:30 UTC (15:30 CEST). If you want to help us set priorities and define the outcomes the community needs you are welcome to join. Join Zoom Meeting https://ripe.zoom.us/j/93730573273?pwd=eWJ1WEEzSzVSSEJNKy9JeXk0L3RqZz09 Leo Vegoda for the Address Policy WG co-chairs