From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Sep 3 14:18:31 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:18:31 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-05 Review Period extended until 17 September 2012 (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553 has been extended until 17 September 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Sep 3 15:50:06 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:50:06 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 1 October 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Sep 5 12:04:02 2012 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:04:02 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218277F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4fcca92e.4d5e0e0a.2ba4.ffffaacaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218277F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50472392.303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> [this comment is made with my view as a LIR manager] Milton L Mueller wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >> >>Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, > > > That is the sum and substance of what 2012-05 is intended to do. > It does what ARIN and APNIC already do: provide an accessible list of resources that have been moved according to the transfer policies in place. > > >>what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do? >>Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their >>registry file? > > > Like the previous question that was raised, you seem to be asking questions > about the transfer policy itself, not about this proposal. The transfer policy > already exists and it is what it is. Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement. Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions. With that point of view I'd like to ask for clarification of the following provision: " LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation. " But the receiving LIR may do so with other parts from their IPv4 address pool? What is the motivation for that particular restriction and for that particular wording? And, I am wondering, whether the following restriction is (still) useful: " The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. " in particular at a point in time when Registration Services has distributed the following announcement (Sept. 4, 2012 [1] ): - Depending on the availability in the RIPE NCC?s free pool of IPv4 address space, you may receive multiple smaller prefixes that add up to the size of your request. > All this proposal does it let the community know who is using it, and to better > assess and track its consequences. > > --MM Wwilfried [1] Subject: RIPE NCC has Approximately Four Million IPv4 Addresses Before Reaching Last /8 From tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com Wed Sep 5 12:16:00 2012 From: tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com (Tore Anderson) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:16:00 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: <50472392.303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4fcca92e.4d5e0e0a.2ba4.ffffaacaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218277F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50472392.303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <50472660.5050709@redpill-linpro.com> * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement. > Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a > good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions. I disagree. > " > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete > or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of > receiving the re-allocation. > " > " > The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum > allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. > " Your questions are off topic, as both of those sentences you quoated are not modified in any way by 2012-05. You are of course free to start a new discussion about them, submit a new proposal to change them, and so forth. But please, don't hijack the 2012-05 thread. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com From gert at space.net Wed Sep 5 15:19:41 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:19:41 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers) In-Reply-To: <50472392.303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4fcca92e.4d5e0e0a.2ba4.ffffaacaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218277F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50472392.303@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20120905131941.GK13776@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:04:02PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > With that point of view I'd like to ask for clarification of the following > provision: > > " > LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete > or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of > receiving the re-allocation. > " > > But the receiving LIR may do so with other parts from their IPv4 address pool? > What is the motivation for that particular restriction and for that particular > wording? Getting a transfer policy in place "back in the days" was a very difficult process, and the net result is a compromise... that particular sentence was there because it was feared that people would stockpile address space, wait for the price to rise, and then sell it off at a higher price - so, you have to sit on it for 24 months. This is not talking about a normal LIR, which has some free space here and there, might need something extra for a while, and then sell it off again... > And, I am wondering, whether the following restriction is (still) useful: > > " > The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum > allocation block size at the time of re-allocation. > " Well, it's an attempt to avoid even further fragmentation of the IPv4 address space (and subsequent burdening of the routing system). We haven't seen that many transfers yet, so I, at least, don't know how "useful" or "harmful" that restriction is in practice. Shall we put these two topics on the agenda for the upcoming RIPE meeting (in "Y. Open Policy Hour")? Would you be willing to lead the discussion? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Sep 10 14:16:44 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:16:44 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 8 October. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From andreas.larsen at ip-only.se Tue Sep 11 10:17:07 2012 From: andreas.larsen at ip-only.se (Andreas Larsen) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:17:07 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I do NOT support this change. // Andreas Den 2012-09-10 14:16 skrev Emilio Madaio : > > > >Dear Colleagues, > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been >published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >has also been published > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 8 October. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > From emadaio at ripe.net Tue Sep 11 14:20:16 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:20:16 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 9 October 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Sep 24 14:14:44 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:14:44 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to . Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Mon Sep 24 14:37:36 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:37:36 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal until 22 October 2012. Highlights of the changes: -additional wording on the second paragraph of section 5.5 You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to before 22 October 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From emadaio at ripe.net Thu Sep 27 12:54:37 2012 From: emadaio at ripe.net (Emilio Madaio) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:54:37 +0200 Subject: [policy-announce] 2011-06 Proposal Accepted (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database) Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal described in 2011-06 has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 The new RIPE document is ripe-563 and it is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/ripe-563 Thank you for your input. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC