Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
PERSONAL ATTACK! HELP! :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:31, "Jan Ingvoldstad" frett...@gmail.com:On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? Your conflating two different areas into one. You're also confusing "current" and "proposed". Additionally, you're attacking parts of sentences completely out of context. -- Jan -- With best regards, Vladimir AndreevGeneral director, QuickSoft LLCTel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi, Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. Indeed. I am staying out of this discussion and I will limit myself to judging on consensus or not. I admit that I am very annoyed by what is happening on the list at the moment, but I will not let that influence my decision. That will be based on arguments for/against the proposal and how they are addressed. What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections against the proposal have been properly considered. That doesn't mean that every objection blocks the proposal. Rough consensus only requires the objections to be taken seriously and be considered. I will let you know the outcome once I analyse every message from the review phase about this proposal on this mailing list. This might take a while... Please be a bit patient. Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC
Hi Sasha, Another thing that may help is to move away from mailing lists as the sole tool - email is something that only old farts like myself are really comfortable with, not to mention very open to abuse as we've seen. There are more modern collaboration tools available, something like Etherpad maybe... See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-chair-meeting-summary item V :) Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? Your conflating two different areas into one. You're also confusing current and proposed. Additionally, you're attacking parts of sentences completely out of context. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger sebast...@karotte.org wrote: * Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com [2015-06-11 13:03]: Hi I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert? *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.* Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not judging anything in this case. Sander is. No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position. Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. Back at you. 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 -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi Lu, and all others, you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand and in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling better now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could have as purpose. All on the list, please stop all those flaming I had to read in the last couple of days. If you know about illegal activities, go to the appropriate authorities. Or maybe first follow the rules defined here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613 And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others. Thanks! Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job! BR Jens Am 11. Juni 2015 11:47:58 MESZ, schrieb Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com: Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. [...] Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG.
Good points, agreed.
It’s normal for some community members feel aggrieved by suspected serious foul
play, be it legit or not. Inevitable really, considering what has become the
(rather ugly) IPv4 gold rush.
However to echo Gert, APWG is not the place for raising claims. Better take
these directly to the RIPE NCC.
Regards,
James
IP Address Manager
T + 31 20 778 9270
M + 31 (0) 652 858 699
jkenn...@libertyglobal.commailto:jkenn...@libertyglobal.com
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Tim Chown
Sent: 11 June 2015 12:27
To: Lu Heng
Cc: Gert Doering; ch...@ripe.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi,
As a casual reader of this list, I would say that
a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt
IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for
the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...)
b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining
scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our
community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to
supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6
before IPv4 ran out, but hey….)
c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the
transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple’s announcement this week that
its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...)
The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let’s please
try to be constructive.
Tim
On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng
h...@anytimechinese.commailto:h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.
secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of
the Chair.
While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list,
all I heard from that Chair was:
One is people managed to get large chunks of address space before the
last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them (Jump SRL is another
example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy
can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something
that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be
received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud
happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)
He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in
his reply.
While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company
yesterday, he even replied:
Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put
on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that
is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 37.222.0.0 claiming to
be 37.222.0.0/15http://37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB
--show-version x output.
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal
under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or
has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed
make the 30x /22 fast-transferred issue look fairly marginal.
While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE
policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal
under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him:
Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from
the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company
Abuser is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I
first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful
as well.
Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:
1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of
the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.
2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not
justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another
words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.
Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business
and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1to close loop of the /8. And such
doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in
the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE
NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.
Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.
And I am not making worse for myself, I
[address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: *One is people managed to get large chunks of address space before the* *last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them (Jump SRL is anotherexample of this). There is not really anything we in address policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)* He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: *Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but thatis the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,37.222.0.0/15 http://37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB --show-version x output.While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeedmake the 30x /22 fast-transferred issue look fairly marginal.* While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: *Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company Abuser is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.* *Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:* *1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.* *2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.* *Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1to close loop of the /8. And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.* *Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.* *And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe.* From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want, this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
* Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com [2015-06-11 13:03]: Hi I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.* Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not judging anything in this case. Sander is. Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. Back at you. 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey….) c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple’s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...) The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let’s please try to be constructive. Tim On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: One is people managed to get large chunks of address space before the last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them (Jump SRL is another example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...) He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 37.222.0.0 claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15 http://37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB --show-version x output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the 30x /22 fast-transferred issue look fairly marginal. While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company Abuser is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well. Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy. Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1to close loop of the /8. And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list. Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour. And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
* David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com [2015-06-11 16:03]: Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s). One thing that came to my mind was to reinstate IPv4 requirements for that last /8? Perhaps require a specific use for the /22? I can already hear people shouting that this is not worth it. But the situation will probably get worse before it gets better. When ARIN runs out (hard) it might get worse even more so. It's impossible to see what the state of the system will be in 10 years but I'm still thinking we should preserve addresses for newcomers instead of letting people make money off of it (which they will probably NOT spend on IPv6 deployments). My hope is that the IPv4 market will get smaller in the same way that IPv6 grows and there are signs that IPv6 adoption is finally increasing in speed. So perhaps this problem will solve itself in the next few years. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied. The question is how would it be clear? I'm not so sure that this is something the NCC staff would be comfortable to decide. But perhaps we should ask the NCC if there are cases where they could be reasonably sure that a new LIR tries to game the system. (Like having ExampleCorp1-20 which are owned by the same person open 20 LIRs) 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Sorry previous mail Garry not aimed at you My point is if consultation is closed these emails are a waste of everyones time... including this one sorry On 11 Jun 2015 15:02, Tom Smyth tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu wrote: I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Action Delete On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, Garry Glendown ga...@nethinks.com wrote: I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. Indeed. Mergers acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via illegitimate MA, including figuring out what is and what is not illegitimate and abuse. I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying it will cut in my personal profit won't be a valid argument against the policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some wording and way of proof would have to be found that be used to decide whether a transfer was permitted or not ... From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason? Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?) Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not owned by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year *putting on flame-resistant armor* -garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning. Perhaps the system that was in use for /16 allocation requests could be used for questionablerequests. (IPRA - IPRA managers - Board) way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion). Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement. hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4. Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still legal for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible. This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents... term problem another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
I agree with Yuri and want to warn you next. Why do we discuss about profit? We can also say that ISPs or Hosting Providers get IPs, then start their servers, networks and make profit. It's too bad. Let's close this hole. This proposal won't solve IPv4 exhaustion problem, due to the part of transfers from the last /8 is too small. 11.06.2015, 20:55, Staff off...@ip4market.ru: Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning. Perhaps the system that was in use for /16 allocation requests could be used for questionablerequests. (IPRA - IPRA managers - Board) way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion). Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement. hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4. Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still legal for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible. This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents... term problem another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Staff off...@ip4market.ru wrote: Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? You seem to lack an argument as to why 2048 addresses would make everything so much better than 1024 addresses. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
On 08.06.2015 15:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 7 July 2015. support.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: No, I am not questioning his integrity, So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.] This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. PLEASE. Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist the temptation to add more noise.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and hide his personal preference while making calls. Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions, you can not say I am going to sentence that guy for 10 years just because I don't like what he is doing. And while you are making mistaken judgement, people have rights to complaint to higher level to make things right. Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov p...@fast-telecom.net wrote: A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:54, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com: Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger sebast...@karotte.org wrote: * Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com [2015-06-11 13:03]: Hi I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert? *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.* Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not judging anything in this case. Sander is. No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position. Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. Back at you. 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 -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52:49PM +0200, Opteamax GmbH wrote: Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job! I certainly hope to spur a good discussion by having people *not* agree with me :-) - but thanks for the encouraging words. We do our best. Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: 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 pgpJUupupwXN7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Enough, i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. Raymond unsubscribing? I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. Dave
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to appeal a grievance in the PDP: 4. Appeals Procedure If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-annou...@ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and stop debating the definition of a chair. rgds, Sascha Luck
[address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. Indeed. Mergers acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via illegitimate MA, including figuring out what is and what is not illegitimate and abuse. I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying it will cut in my personal profit won't be a valid argument against the policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some wording and way of proof would have to be found that be used to decide whether a transfer was permitted or not ... From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason? Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?) Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not owned by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year *putting on flame-resistant armor* -garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Garry, all your points are totally right. So ... when will we start writing that much stricter proposal ... I'd be happy to assist! But: announcement-validation is not a valid mechanism ... for that you'd need only one real internet connected router and a VM running e.g. bird, which announces your prefixes. I remember about 10 years ago, when I was trying to request a /17 for a hoster in US at Arin, we were forced to provide a list with full customer contact-data for all our IPs assigned ... and they really contacted customers of us asking if they were running hosts in our address-space ... So if NCC does not have to handle all this transfer documentation anymore, LIR openers and closures, they'd have enough time to really validate requirement for transfer. As already written in earlier mails ... if the hurdle of reasoning why a transfer is high enough, the market will break ... and honestly I am sure that this would fasten up V6 deployment enormously! BR Jens - Certified to be flame-resistant - On 11.06.2015 14:57, Garry Glendown wrote: From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason? Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?) Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not owned by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year *putting on flame-resistant armor* -garry !DSPAM:637,557986be102931108720806! -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi Gert and rest of the list: I will stop posting and I believe all my points has been made. I will expect answer from WGCC and Chair of Ripe for the outcome of this appeal. Let's go back to the policy. (And apologised to anyone feel disturbed, because it was really not first time me and my company being put in the list, I have never responded but this time, I do feel I have to do something to stop being mentioned again and again as a bad guy in the community , for real, in past 7 years I was in the Ripe community, I did not post anything ever for my personal interest in the public list as well as speaking in the micphone in Ripe meeting, I tried my best to learn, and as one of very young people to the community, I even tried my best to bring more young people at their 20s to join the discussion) On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +, David Freedman wrote: i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. Raymond unsubscribing? Raymond, please do not! I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily interpreted as trying to hide the truth, stop free speech or whatever. I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, point taken). So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not discussing personal gripes? Gert Doering -- speaking as myself -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: 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 -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +, David Freedman wrote: i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. Raymond unsubscribing? Raymond, please do not! I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily interpreted as trying to hide the truth, stop free speech or whatever. I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, point taken). So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not discussing personal gripes? Gert Doering -- speaking as myself -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: 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 pgpkbMI33Y72A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi Sascha: Thanks for the link. Yes, please consider appeal has been made, and I will expect responds from WGCC and Chair of Ripe. Thanks. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to appeal a grievance in the PDP: 4. Appeals Procedure If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-annou...@ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and stop debating the definition of a chair. rgds, Sascha Luck -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jim Reid j...@rfc1035.com wrote: On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng h...@anytimechinese.com wrote: No, I am not questioning his integrity, So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.] I did not see why I was very wrong while I feel some of the judgement of the Chair was not right. I think as community member, I have all my rights to question Chair's Integrity while I feel so. This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. PLEASE. The purpose I have said in the first Email: I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. If you believe such purpose was not useful, I reserve my personal opinion. Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist the temptation to add more noise. All I want is keep future of this list clear and smooth without future encouragement to personal attacks. Shut up does not solve the problem. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied. Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:00:00PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-chair-meeting-summary item V :) Way ahead of me, I see. Nice one, thanks to the Chairs. rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Hello List, Here is my trial balloon attempting to offer a policy which prevents gaming. The concept is that it is simpler to attack the incentive than wade into the quagmire of defining legitimate business operations. I propose that new RIPE LIRs get their /22, but it only becomes fully vested as an asset after 5 years. Before that time, RIPE won't allow these 185/8 addresses to be transferred without RIPE being paid the balance of the 5 years' worth of membership fees. So the new LIR gets the /22 and pays the annual membership fee to RIPE. After 5 payments the addresses are fully transferable. If the new LIR goes out of business and returns the addresses, they don't owe anything further. If the new LIR wants to sell the addresses, he first has to pay the balance of 5 years membership dues to RIPE. So if he sells the addresses after one year, he has to pay four years of RIPE membership dues before they process the transfer. This lets the new LIR accumulate asset value in the addresses over time and gives him the option of selling or returning the addresses. I chose 5 years because right now 5 years of RIPE fees is roughly the cost for a /22. This will not be overly burdensome to RIPE staff, as analysis is only performed when and if a transfer of 185/8 addresses is submitted. This will not require judgement calls on the part of RIPE staff. If prices skyrocket, we can adjust the number of years. (Not commenting on prior policy but providing commentary on Mr.Huberman's post.) Thoughts? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied. Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Hi all, fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. A patent is useful when registered, detailed described and made public so that anyone can understand the benefit and re-do the same following patent istructions. Not in a drawer. It becomes a rich business when you can make it available to the market at a so resoanable (sometimes not) price a that people don't need to build up it themself. I hate the guys whos eyes are rolling with dollar symbol when they see a new business opportunity: speculators. I love people that when find a new business are entusiat to do business with it 'cause it solve a problem or makes life easier and better and they can make money with it. I don't think policy 2015-01 will save IPv4 and I don't think it is its purpose. I don't think this will make someone richer and someone else poorer, that's a market thing. I like it in its simpleness: just an alignement. Transferred IPs have to be holded 24 months... with 2015-01 *all* transferred IPs have to be holded 24months that's it. Simple and clean as considered by Gert ad RIPE69 listeing to proposal. In the past someone chated the system with fake address plans I need more address space Now someone cheats the system with fake I need a new LIR I can't see any difference in this and to me 2015-01 looks fair enough. am with Sebastian I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s). About must deploy IPv6 I remeber you that IPv6 allocation requirement has been just removed from /22 IPv4 requests. Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 You don't even need an IPv6 address space to ask for IPv4 /22 Now remember that RIPE task is to distribute resources and think about it. from NRO stats https://www.nro.net/statistics 2012 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.02 ARIN 2.86 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13 https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph https://www.arin.net/ task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think? Another point: Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) Please note the Arguments Opposing the Proposal It may reintroduce needs justification to the RIPE region [...] Finally I think the policies are going the right way. This won't stop speculators or fix everything but is trying to save the task of distributing resources in a bottom - up fair way (read as approved from the community) Standing on me I finally decided study better IPv6 and understand its market problem and I will try spend some work in that direction next months. Even if 17 years old he's still a teen and see a couple of market problems in it. From RIPE70 i decided to go this way and I'll get in touch with IETF and try to put some ideas in and see if something can help. kind regards Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rg...@wirem.net wirem.net
Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Hi Jan, thanks for you reply Il 11/06/2015 23.56, Jan Ingvoldstad ha scritto: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Riccardo Gori rg...@wirem.net mailto:rg...@wirem.net wrote: Hi all, fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. (...) 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13 https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph https://www.arin.net/ task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think? Was ironic to point out that there are many different point of views. Someone thinks that IPv6 will grow when IPv4 will be completly exhausted. I can't see any other reason to allow inter-RIR transfert (2014-05) to address the need of address space where is available or stock-piled and unused So the good guy who stockpiled is the old cheater that needed IPv4 /15 - /17 or the new cheater that needed many IPv4 /22 ? I see no differences. About the policy in RIPE region: Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8 Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) I see easiness in 2015-01 I see alignement, you can find the same rule 24months in 2014-05 Without acknowledging your interpretation of distributing resources, I would like to point out that when ARIN in a very short time no longer has any of these resources to distribute, they will, _forever_, fail to do their task, while RIPE still will carry out that task. I think they should have an IPv6 /12 as other RIRs to distribute... So if we accepted your premise that that is _The Task_, RIPE will be performing the task better than ARIN, and not vice versa. -- Jan I think both are complying the task as well as the bottom-up approved policies. regards good night Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rg...@wirem.net wirem.net
[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published be mailing list
Hi, I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve the problem
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Only people who would object are those who wana exploit the system! If i did this in 1995 i would be loaded! I still have my 'rose tinted glasses on' Feeling old! RIPE.. this needs to stop! Danial Subhani Pro-Net Internet Services Ltd div Original message /divdivFrom: Jan Ingvoldstad frett...@gmail.com /divdivDate:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00) /divdivTo: RIPE Address Policy WG address-policy-wg@ripe.net /divdivSubject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published /divdiv /divOn Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to Discussion or Withdraw after Review phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan
[address-policy-wg] I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
[address-policy-wg] (no subject)
-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
I would 2nd that! When I have nothing better to do, I sit here reading this book :-) Regards to you all :-) Danial Subhani PRO-NET INTERNET SERVICES LTD Tel: 0870 835 6911 Fax: 0870 835 6912 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. It is strictly prohibited to disseminate, distribute or copy this communication if you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message. If you have received this communication in error, please accept our apology. -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Silvia Hagen Sent: 10 June 2015 15:47 To: el...@velea.eu; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: Hi, [...] Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...] Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests). Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said: It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by
Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:37AM +0800, Callum Stuart wrote: One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. If this was circulated *privately*, leaking it to the public is a gross violation of nettiquette. [..] Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Stop these personal attacks RIGHT NOW. There is no evidence to back this, so don't go around attacking members of the community in good standing in public. You might not *like* the brokerage business (which is a perfectly viable personal opinion - I think it's important to ensure that buyers and sellers can have a mutual point of trust, who ensures the transaction is done without either side cheating) - but that does not imply that the personal integrity of Elvis is under any sort of doubt here. If you think something criminal has been done, and can prove it, involve NCC management. But this DOES NOT belong on the AP list. (And it's a very cheap shot to try to stop the proposal by attacking the proposer - it won't achieve that, as the proposer is no longer involved at this point anyway. It's a matter of the chairs and PDO now.) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: 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 pgphDfgF6CkOT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it? As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion (if neither chair is around, things come to a stop, and what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?) - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: 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 pgpnuXTJVr9Ej.pgp Description: PGP signature
