[ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - June Update

Dear Aleksey,

Thank you for your interest in our monthly PDP Update.

Regarding the decision of rough consensus and the move to Last Call, 
please see the following announcement from Address Policy Working Group 
co-Chair Sander Steffann, where he outlines how he reached this 
decision:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-June/010296.html

As Gert wrote, well-justified objections to the proposal (that have not 
already been raised and addressed) must be sent to the Address Policy WG 
mailing list if they are to be taken into consideration
To help people follow the discussion, the subject line for this thread 
should be "Consensus on 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for 
IPv4 Allocations".

Regarding our calculation that 10% of allocations were transferred 
shortly after: it is correct that this number includes all /22 
allocations that were transferred in the past 24 months. These are 
allocations that would be subject to a holding period if the proposal is 
accepted (how long would depend on when the allocation was made). I 
would refer you to a presentation by Registration Services Manager 
Andrea Cima during the Address Policy WG session at RIPE 70. On page 
eight, you can see that the majority of transfers take place in the 
first few months after the allocation is made:
https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/82-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final_AG.pdf

I hope this clarifies your questions.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

On 2015-06-24 22:44, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> I can not agree that consensus has been reached for 2015-01 "Alignment
> of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations"
> 
> Impact analysis shows that 10% of the allocations made by the RIPE NCC
> are transfers.
> But how this value has been calculated?
> 
> It is as
> [number of transfers] / [number of allocations made by the RIPE NCC]
> 
> for last 6 months
> 
> But how can you know when has been the transfered block allocated? It
> can be allocated last year but transfered only now.
> 
> But there were many other calculations, showing that the number of the
> transfers is less than 3% for the last /8.
> 
> Moreover this proposal doesn't close the hole allowed to open several
> accounts to one organization.
> 
> 2015-06-24 14:37 GMT+03:00 Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and 
>> the
>> stage each has reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).
>> 
>> If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please 
>> do so
>> on the relevant working group mailing list.
>> 
>> Proposals Open for Discussion:
>> 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" – Discussion 
>> open
>> until 7 July 2015
>> 
>> Proposals in Last Call:
>> 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations"– 
>> Last
>> Call until 21 July 2015
>> 
>> Proposals Awaiting Input:
>> 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size"
>> 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments"
>> 
>> Proposal Overviews:
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation"
>> OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to remove the requirement that LIRs 
>> should
>> return their IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignment when requesting 
>> an
>> IPv6 allocation.
>> RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that little impact is 
>> expected
>> in terms of routing table growth.
>> STATUS: Review Phase
>> WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
>> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> DEADLINE: 7 July 2015
>> FULL PROPOSAL: 
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02
>> 
>> =====
>> 
>> The following proposal is in Last Call. Rough consensus has been 
>> declared
>> and the purpose of this phase is to give the community a final 
>> opportunity
>> to present any well-justified objections to the proposal that have not
>> already been raised and addressed during the previous discussion 
>> phases.
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 
>> Allocations"
>> OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can 
>> only be
>> re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE 
>> NCC
>> can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the 
>> transfer
>> requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations.
>> RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% 
>> of
>> the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after 
>> they have
>> been allocated.
>> STATUS: Last Call
>> WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: 
>> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> DEADLINE: 21 July 2015
>> FULL PROPOSAL: 
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
>> 
>> =====
>> 
>> The following proposals are awaiting input before they proceed in the 
>> PDP.
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation 
>> Size"
>> OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to remove the requirement that large IPv6
>> allocations are based only on existing users and network 
>> infrastructure. As
>> a result of this policy implementation, the RIPE NCC will be able to
>> consider additional criteria when evaluating IPv6 allocation requests.
>> STATUS: Discussion Phase - Awaiting impact analysis*
>> FULL PROPOSAL: 
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03
>> 
>> PROPOSAL: 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number
>> Assignments"
>> OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to ease the requirements when requesting 
>> an
>> Autonomous System (AS) Number. To this end, the following actions are
>> proposed:
>> - Remove the need for evaluation
>> - Limit the number of AS Numbers per organisation to 1,000
>> - Require that 16-bit AS Numbers are multihomed after nine months
>> RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that it will be the End 
>> User
>> that decides if the need for an AS Number is technically reasonable.
>> STATUS: Review Phase - Awaiting New Proposal Version
>> FULL PROPOSAL: 
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-03
>> 
>> *The goal of the impact analysis is to provide supporting information 
>> to
>> facilitate discussions about the proposal and to outline the 
>> proposal’s
>> possible impact if it were to be accepted.
>> 
>> =====
>> 
>> The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on
>> www.ripe.net:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals
>> 
>> We look forward to your involvement in the PDP.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Marco Schmidt
>> RIPE Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC