[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 2

we are intrested to assist and support changes.
a lot of changes should be made in the policy.
a lot of things are too old to be true.

but all this email systems are of couse too old and a lot of people and 
LIRs just ignore this ability.
but looks RIPE don't wanna add any new possibility???


On 10.12.2013 2:20, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote:
> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng)
>     2. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Tore Anderson)
>     3. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Lu Heng)
>     4. Re: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 (Sander Steffann)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:58:17 +0100
> From: Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28,
> 	Issue 1
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAvCx3h0Hco=UzY8p0X8sR6udQzqusG-Tdm1Q8CYfoHR3MYUHQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hey guys:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
>
> under b. Arguments opposing the proposal, point 3, there is following
> link, in which is not working.
>
> http://www.ripe.net/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-October/007258.html
>
> Mind someone check it and help to fix it?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM,  <address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:
>> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>>          address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>          https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>          address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>          address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>     1. Re: Announcing address resources (Sebastian Wiesinger)
>>     2. ripe-589 question (Raimundas Tuminauskas)
>>     3. Re: ripe-589 question (Sander Steffann)
>>     4. 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI  Unification IPv6
>>        Address Space) (Marco Schmidt)
>>     5. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and
>>        Impact Analysis Published (Gert Doering)
>>     6. Re: 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and
>>        Impact Analysis Published (Richard Hartmann)
>>     7. 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post Depletion    Adjustment of
>>        Procedures to Match Policy Objectives,    and Clean-up of Obsolete
>>        Policy Text) (Marco Schmidt)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:48:24 +0100
>> From: Sebastian Wiesinger <ripe.address-policy-wg at ml.karotte.org>
>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Announcing address resources
>> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Message-ID: <20131125084824.GA25194 at danton.fire-world.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> * Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> [2013-11-21 22:36]:
>>> Apropos of, oh I don't know, the weather or the phase of the moon or
>>> something, could someone point me to the RIPE policy which says that if
>>> you're assigned address resources from the RIPE NCC, that they cannot be
>>> announced from outside the RIPE NCC service region?
>> Hi,
>>
>> the way I understood it is that the LIR company has to be in the RIPE
>> region but where you announce your prefixes is your decision. I
>> requested an AS&PA explicitly for announcement in asia without any
>> problems.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>> --
>> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
>> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
>>              -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:57:33 +0200
>> From: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis at litnet.lt>
>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question
>> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Message-ID: <20131129055733.18765g0w8kjb0hog at pastas.litnet.lt>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone
>> caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated.
>>
>> Problem:
>> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479.
>> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29).
>> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS.
>> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS.
>>
>> Arguments for new policy:
>> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals)
>>
>> Arguments for current policy:
>> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing
>> policies, no aggregation.
>> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be
>> enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment
>> planning if not.
>> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if
>> any current end-user (university) would require independent routing
>> policies.
>> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will
>> happen) will be far off from 2001:778
>>
>> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather
>> deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ?
>> TIA
>>
>> sincerely,
>>     Raimundas Tuminauskas
>>     KTU ITD / LITNET NOC
>>     Studentu 48a, Kaunas
>>     51367, Lithuania
>> phone: +370 37300033
>> fax: +370 37300643
>> email: raimis at litnet.lt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:32:40 +0100
>> From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] ripe-589 question
>> To: Raimundas Tuminauskas <raimis at litnet.lt>
>> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group"
>>          <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>> Message-ID: <F664CA6C-673C-4CCE-A184-F351521F5649 at steffann.nl>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> We've ran into internal conflict assigning IPv6 address space. Anyone caring to provide independent view on this would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Problem:
>>> LITNET (org: ORG-LA11-RIPE) has been comprised of two ASNs 2847 and 5479.
>>> Current IPv6 allocation is /29 (inet6num: 2001:778::/29).
>>> Current policy is to assign /32 per AS.
>>> Proposed new policy is to assign /30 per AS.
>>>
>>> Arguments for new policy:
>>> - RIPE-589 3.4 (Aggregation) and 3.8 (Conflict of goals)
>>>
>>> Arguments for current policy:
>>> - Two routes will be announced anyway. Different AS_PATH and routing policies, no aggregation.
>>> - /32 is 1200+ /64s per head of population of the country. Should be enough for any local AS for foreseeable future. Revise assignment planning if not.
>> I wouldn't count separate /64s as that will give you a distorted number. Count using the assignment size you are using, which I assume is a /48 per customer/university/research-institution/etc. That gives you a maximum of 65536 per /32. In a country with a population of 3 million that is probably enough to number all your customers :-)
>>
>>> - The same address space allocation will be preserved for future AS if any current end-user (university) would require independent routing policies.
>>> - We will not get any wider allocation. Next address range (if it will happen) will be far off from 2001:778
>> So why don't you announce 2001:778::/32 from one AS and 2001:77c::/32 from the other? If you need more space in one AS then you can grow to a /31 or /30, and if you don't need to grow them then you might, if at some point in the future you need a separate routing policy, announce the remaining space from a separate AS.
>>
>>> I'm not in favor of wasting a long-term resource like IPv6 and rather deviate from the policy, but maybe I'm missing a point here somewhere ?
>> Well, you can get the /29, and nobody else is going to get it, so you might as well make the best use of it. I just asked the NCC to expand my /32 to a /29. I use the first /32 for a LISP-based ISP setup, and I'm going to use one or more separate /32s for training purposes for ISPs. The nice thing about IPv6 is that we can always get enough space for what we need (within limits of course ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:07:24 +0100
>> From: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt at ripe.net>
>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-06 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (PA/PI
>>          Unification IPv6 Address Space)
>> To: policy-announce at ripe.net
>> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Message-ID: <mailman.469.1386335706.3566.address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>>
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>> The proposal 2013-06, "PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space" has been withdrawn.
>>
>>
>> It is now archived and can be found at:
>>
>>      https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-06
>>
>>
>> Reason for withdrawal: During the Discussion Phase it became clear that the RIPE
>> community did not see the need for such a complex change. As a result, the
>> proposers decided to withdraw the proposal.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Office
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:31:21 +0100
>> From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal
>>          Description and Impact Analysis Published
>> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Message-ID: <20131205183121.GA54642 at Space.Net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Dear AP WG,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>> [..]
>>> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any
>>> comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 5 December 2013.
>> the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today.  No comments were received,
>> thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be
>> unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed
>> at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons
>> opposing it.
>>
>> Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG
>> chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus.  We think that
>> all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered -
>> this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind,
>> but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward.
>>
>> This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call.  Marco will send
>> the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow.
>>
>> For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or
>> something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
>> what the chairs based their decision on.
>>
>> If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the
>> conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.
>>
>> Gert Doering,
>>          Address Policy WG Chair
>>
>>
>> support:
>>      Mikael Abrahamsson
>>      Randy Bush
>>      Daniel Stolpe
>>      Dimitri I Sidelnikov
>>      Andy Davidson
>>      Sascha Luck
>>      Jan Zorz
>>      Bengt G?rd?n
>>      Raluca Andreea Gogiou
>>      Roger J?rgensen
>>      Richard Hartmann  (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
>>      Andreas Larsen
>>      Jan Ingvoldstad   (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
>>      Elvis Daniel Velea
>>      Nigel Titley      (seconding Richard's sentiments)
>>      Gerry Demaret
>>      Sebastian Wiesinger
>>      Lu Heng
>>      Sonderegger Olaf
>>      Ian Johannesen
>>      Fredrik Widell
>>      Alexey Ivanov
>>      Sandra Brown
>>      Donal Cunningham
>>      Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>>      Mike Burns
>>      George Giannousopoulos
>>      Ragnar Anfinsen
>>      Milton L Mueller
>>      Ronny Boesger
>>      Dominik Bay
>>      Lutz Donnerhacke
>>
>> support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and
>>           some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community
>>      Malcolm Hutty  (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details)
>>
>> neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition):
>>      CJ Aronson
>>      Nick Hilliard
>>      Hans Petter Holen
>>      John Curran
>>
>>
>> opposing:
>>      McTim
>>         "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system
>>         is good stewardship.  In addition there are multiple issues listed in
>>         the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern.  The primary issue
>>         there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies."
>>
>>         considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis
>>         that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the
>>         goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal,
>>         and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be
>>         amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be,
>>         if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which
>>         currently does not seem to be the case).
>>
>>         Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4
>>         of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a
>>         less controversial message to external parties.  So we consider this
>>         to be addressed as well.
>>
>>      Filiz Yilmaz
>>         would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include
>>         "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space"
>>
>>         This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see
>>         what the impact would be.  NCC RS stated that the addition of this
>>         sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given
>>         that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness
>>         to make an assignment from it - and that is already there.
>>
>>         Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for
>>         the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change
>>         and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point
>>         answered, and go forward.
>>
>>      Sylvain Vallerot
>>         main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins
>>         under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could
>>         create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being
>>         able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses.
>>
>>         considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure
>>         inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place,
>>         a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny
>>         addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left
>>         anymore to give all of them what they ask for.
>>
>>      David Farmer
>>         initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion
>>         between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the
>>         proposal itself
>> --
>> 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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: not available
>> Type: application/pgp-signature
>> Size: 826 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131205/c9364fea/attachment-0001.bin
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:33:26 +0100
>> From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal
>>          Description and Impact Analysis Published
>> To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
>> Cc: Address Policy Working Group <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>> Message-ID:
>>          <CAD77+gQ=YxNC3fv87v_xd2+iGQiQr631+FonMSBj5a103OEZPA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> Dear chair,
>>
>> thanks for your work; tracking this behemoth of a discussion must be a
>> lot of fun!
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:13:31 +0100
>> From: "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt at ripe.net>
>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 Last Call for Comments (Post
>>          Depletion       Adjustment of Procedures to Match Policy Objectives,    and
>>          Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text)
>> To: policy-announce at ripe.net
>> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> Message-ID: <mailman.470.1386335706.3566.address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
>>
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>> The proposal described in 2013-03, "Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures
>> to Match Policy Objectives, and Clean-up of Obsolete Policy Text", is now
>> in its Concluding Phase.
>>
>> The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs have declared that consensus for
>> the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call.
>>
>> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these
>> coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity
>> to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous
>> two phases and want to oppose the proposal.
>>
>> Any objection must be made by 6 January 2014 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 co-Chairs of
>> all RIPE Working Groups for consensus.
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>>      https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
>>
>> Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>> before 6 January 2014.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Office
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1
>> ************************************************
>
>