Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi list,

I support this proposal. It's seems logical and needed modify.
Simple and easy clarification to avoid misunderstading in 
interpretation. Well done thank you Max.


I realized that I was proposing sort of this to one of my customers just 
before summer season 2016 for beach side public wifi.

Project postponed to summer season 2017 for technical reasons.

I would copy the "Contractual requirements" under "New Policy Text" 
since like this seems to be part of the modify.


regards
Riccardo

Il 21/10/2016 10:15, Marco Schmidt ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments 
as subnets of /64 and shorter.

You can find the full proposal at:

 https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 21 November 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum



--
Riccardo Gori

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Richard Hartmann]

+1

Richard

Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Kai 'wusel' Siering]

Hello,

am 21.10.2016 um 10:32 schrieb David Croft:
> Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
> assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
> on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not
> the intention.

I'm new to this, so please bear with my simple-mindedness here,
but to me it looks like »the NCC's interpretation that a single
DHCP lease on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity« iswhat
should be addressed, instead of special-caseing something intoan
already complex policy document.

Reading through ripe-655 multiple times, I can't find a basisfor
counting an temporal, RA/DHCP-based, lease of PI space by an
organisation holding Provider Independent Resources as a sub-
assignment of a/128 prefix.

Quoting the relevant definitions of ripe-655:
---8<---
2.6. Assign

To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User
for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate.
Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented
by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other
parties.

[…]

7. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments

To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must meet
therequirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document
entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources
Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”.

The RIPE NCC will assign the prefix directly to the End User
organisationsupon a request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC,
either directly orthrough a sponsoring LIR.

[…]

Assignments will be made from a separate 'designated block' to
facilitate filtering practices.

The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations.
--->8---

An »assignment« therefore is something that – to prevent the word
»assign« here – dedicates an address space to someone for a specifc
purpose and this act needs to be registered (see 5, and esp. 5.5)
in an RIR database. But PI assignments cannot be assigned further,
as clearly stated.

Operating a WiFi network for employees, relatives, event-visitors or
even the general public (i. e. open WiFi, no WPA2) as an End User
of Provider Independent Resources does not constitute an
»assignment«, neither in terms of ripe-655 nor in real life.

As far as I understand the process, this WG suggests the policies
which the NCC implements? So, unless there was a previous call from
this WG to the NCC to interpret things as it is reportedly done –
which, from the comment, wasn't the case? –, why not just vote on
a statement that NCC's interpretation is outside of the scope or
intention of ripe-655?

I mean, it's not the policy that's at fault here; there exists
an _interpretation_, used by the RIPE NCC during evaluation of PI
space requests, which at least to me is not even remotely covered
by ripe-655. Don't mess with what's not broken, fix what is broken ;)

Regards,
-kai (End User since 1992)

-- 
Kai SieringSchalückstraße 107, 2 Gütersloh
eMail: wu...@uu.org   ISN: 98735*1796 × Phone: +49 172 8635608
--
"Getdate firmly  believes that years after 1999 do not exist;  getdate
 will have to be killed by the year 2000."
 -- From the "Bugs" section of cnews-020592/libc/getdate.3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[David Croft]

On 21 October 2016 at 12:55, Maximilian Wilhelm  wrote:
> Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:
>> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement
>> text for the "Contractual Requirements"
>
> That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the definiton
> of a sub-assignment - is specified in the new version of ripe-655.
>
> What are you missing?

It appears in the "Current policy text" section, which implied that it
was going to be changed in the "New policy text" section, but I guess
it's just there for context then.

David

-- 
David Croft

For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net
and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694

Sargasso Networks Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 06404839.
Registered Office: 46a Albert Road North, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9EL

http://www.sargasso.net/

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:

> On 21 October 2016 at 12:55, Maximilian Wilhelm  wrote:
> > Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:
> >> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement
> >> text for the "Contractual Requirements"
> >
> > That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the definiton
> > of a sub-assignment - is specified in the new version of ripe-655.
> >
> > What are you missing?
> 
> It appears in the "Current policy text" section, which implied that it
> was going to be changed in the "New policy text" section, but I guess
> it's just there for context then.

Yes, indeed. I quoted that part as it is relavant context for the
change and holds the point in questions.

Best
Max
-- 
"Wer nicht mehr liebt und nicht mehr irrt, der lasse sich begraben."
 -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

>
> > So it doesn't matter what the policy says it's scope is, it only matters
> what the chair decides we can discuss or not. Nice "democracy" we have ...
>
> Even in parliament you need a chairperson to keep the discussion on topic
> and to prevent people from hijacking it.
>

And hopefully that's what they do. Anyone who has read the policy can see
what it's goal is and that what I've said is just to stick to that goal. If
that's hijacking then you can call me Don Quijote.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Mikael, Hi Sander,


Il 21/10/2016 16:45, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Mikael,


These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it 
wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 
without this policy.

So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were 
saved to be used under different policy, thus under restrictions.

I was one of the proponents of this. I have subsequently changed my mind and I 
am now of the opinion that we should not have any /8 policy at all, and just 
hand out the rest of the IPv4 space to current LIRs and let the market handle 
the rest. It's obvious from the discussions here that most people do not 
appreciate the intention behind the last-/8 policy, and our attempts to try to 
help new entrants into the market has failed.

I share your sentiment. It's tempting to assume that all the new LIRs are 
ungrateful and don't appreciate what this community did for them before their 
companies even existed, and that we therefore failed. I still resist that 
temptation and hope that the silent majority is actually appreciative that we 
didn't leave them in the cold.

You can find my thankfulness for this in the email archived in apwg


So let's just get it over with and exhaust all the rest of RIPE NCC free 
addresses immediately by some scheme to divvy up whatever free resources are 
left to the members and after that, let all restrictions go.

If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying IPv6, 
I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't completely 
exhausted yet.

Yeah, I have heard that repeatedly over the last couple of years. I'm still 
explaining that the remaining IPv4 resources are a special-case so that 
newcomers get a small foothold in the IPv4 world as part of their NCC 
membership and not be left completely to the whims of the market. That there is 
a remaining pool doesn't mean it's business as usual, or that that pool should 
be used as a cheap source of an expensive resource for sale on the market. Some 
people seem to have trouble understanding that.

It's indeed disappointing that not all current participants share the selfless 
principles of the ones that made the policies before them. But those principles 
and fair policies are what I'm still fighting for.
I think you are missing that LIRs before 09/2012 are sitting on unused 
space. Not me, not us LIR after 09/2012.
We just need space now to grow our new businesses. Who wants to sell 
space to who?




Cheers,
Sander



cheers
Riccardo

--

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rg...@wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943


WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to i...@wirem.net
Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hello Ciprian,
>
> > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done
> with resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's
> scope and start a new one with proper debates over this issue.
>
> Please leave it to the chairs to determine what is in scope for being
> discussed and what is not.
>
> So it doesn't matter what the policy says it's scope is, it only matters
what the chair decides we can discuss or not. Nice "democracy" we have ...

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Sander Steffann]

Hello Ciprian,

> It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done with 
> resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's scope 
> and start a new one with proper debates over this issue.

Please leave it to the chairs to determine what is in scope for being discussed 
and what is not.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Sasha,
>
> > In market-based economies, M -including the disposal of
> > assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, a state
> regulator, which the NCC is NOT.
> > It is unthinkable in such a society that business decisions are
> > subject to the whim of random people on a mailing list. The
> > RIPE NCC recognises that and puts M firmly outside policy.
>
> I think we need to look at the differences between regulating M, which
> is indeed far outside the scope of this working group, and defining policy
> about what can be done with resources after someone acquires them (M or
> otherwise) which is definitely in scope.
>
>
It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done with
resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's scope
and start a new one with proper debates over this issue.

Ciprian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Mikael,

> These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it 
> wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 
> without this policy.
> 
> So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were 
> saved to be used under different policy, thus under restrictions.
> 
> I was one of the proponents of this. I have subsequently changed my mind and 
> I am now of the opinion that we should not have any /8 policy at all, and 
> just hand out the rest of the IPv4 space to current LIRs and let the market 
> handle the rest. It's obvious from the discussions here that most people do 
> not appreciate the intention behind the last-/8 policy, and our attempts to 
> try to help new entrants into the market has failed.

I share your sentiment. It's tempting to assume that all the new LIRs are 
ungrateful and don't appreciate what this community did for them before their 
companies even existed, and that we therefore failed. I still resist that 
temptation and hope that the silent majority is actually appreciative that we 
didn't leave them in the cold.

> So let's just get it over with and exhaust all the rest of RIPE NCC free 
> addresses immediately by some scheme to divvy up whatever free resources are 
> left to the members and after that, let all restrictions go.
> 
> If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying 
> IPv6, I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't 
> completely exhausted yet.

Yeah, I have heard that repeatedly over the last couple of years. I'm still 
explaining that the remaining IPv4 resources are a special-case so that 
newcomers get a small foothold in the IPv4 world as part of their NCC 
membership and not be left completely to the whims of the market. That there is 
a remaining pool doesn't mean it's business as usual, or that that pool should 
be used as a cheap source of an expensive resource for sale on the market. Some 
people seem to have trouble understanding that.

It's indeed disappointing that not all current participants share the selfless 
principles of the ones that made the policies before them. But those principles 
and fair policies are what I'm still fighting for.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members that 
can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from the date 
this policy proposal would be implemented)
b. the members that have only received resources after September 2012 and can 
not afford to buy IP IP addresses at the market prices (but they can buy an 
unlimited number of these from the RIPE NCC at ~€4,5 (€3,4/1st year + 
€1,4/2nd year - redistribution of profit)


Correct.

These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it 
wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 
without this policy.


So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses 
were saved to be used under different policy, thus under restrictions.


I was one of the proponents of this. I have subsequently changed my mind 
and I am now of the opinion that we should not have any /8 policy at all, 
and just hand out the rest of the IPv4 space to current LIRs and let the 
market handle the rest. It's obvious from the discussions here that most 
people do not appreciate the intention behind the last-/8 policy, and our 
attempts to try to help new entrants into the market has failed.


So let's just get it over with and exhaust all the rest of RIPE NCC free 
addresses immediately by some scheme to divvy up whatever free resources 
are left to the members and after that, let all restrictions go.


If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying 
IPv6, I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't 
completely exhausted yet.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Ciprian Nica]

I didn't have any popcorn but a few nachos were helpful to read the full
e-mail.

Very good and detailed explanations. +100 from me to Elvis which can also
be read as -100 for the policy.

For those of you who pretend working, it's friday so you can't trick anyone
;). You'd better read Elvis's mail entirely.

Have a nice weekend,
Ciprian

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 10/19/16 11:05 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>
>> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under
>> the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be
>> added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
>>
> I do not agree with this policy proposal and believe it will not fix
> anything, instead - it will harm the registry.
>
>> Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
>>
>> -Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a
>> result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed
>> transfer restriction
>>
> this fixes only a tiny bit of the problem.
>
>> -Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4
>> available pool
>>
> this has nothing to do with the policy proposal. I feel it's just some
> candy offered to sweeten the proposal itself.
>
> This was the short version of my response. Those reading this e-mail
> during working hours, you can go back to work ;) those that still have some
> popcorn left, feel free to read further.
>
> Below are the 6 most important reasons why I believe this policy proposal
> should not become policy:
>
> 1. This policy proposal will create two types of members.
>
> a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members that
> can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from the
> date this policy proposal would be implemented)
> b. the members that have only received resources after September 2012 and
> can not afford to buy IP IP addresses at the market prices (but they can
> buy an unlimited number of these from the RIPE NCC at ~€4,5 (€3,4/1st year
> + €1,4/2nd year - redistribution of profit)
>
> The first type of member would be allowed to participate in an IP transfer
> market that was (until the implementation of this policy proposal, if ever)
> accessible to everyone and anyone with resources received from the RIPE NCC
> or an other member.
> The second type of member will not be allowed to participate in this IP
> transfer market unless they buy first from an other member.
>
> Some members have already been able to transfer their /22 received from
> the last /8. With the implementation of this policy proposal (if ever) I
> feel that we as a community will discriminate between those that have
> received their last /22 (and want/need, for various reasons to transfer it)
> 2 or more years before implementation and those that have received less
> than 2 years before the implementation (or any time after).
>
> I know some of you do not like analogies. But I would compare this with 2
> people buying their cars. The first can buy the car and sell it 2 years
> later, only because the purchase happened even just a few days before the
> car industry decides that cars can no longer be sold further. So, those
> that have bought their car and used it for 1.5 years will have to return it
> (for free) to the car manufacturer while others could have sold it because
> they were quick in the purchase process and bought it earlier.
>
> So, I think that once this policy proposal would be implemented (if ever)
> it would discriminate the second type of member as they will not be allowed
> to participate in a well established IP transfer market with the IP
> addresses received from the RIPE NCC (and only with the IP addresses they
> need to buy from the market first).
>
>
> 2. This policy proposal will create yet an other color of IP addresses.
>
> I believe and hope that in the near future we will start talking about the
> removal of colors and not about addition of more colors. Numbers are just
> numbers. There is no difference between a number received in 1990, one
> received after 1992 or one that has status PI or PA. Now, we want to add a
> color for numbers received after 2012...
>
> My router does not know any difference between these numbers and nobody
> really cares. Do you think that PI holders care that they are not supposed
> to sub-assign that space to other customers ? Do you think the RIPE NCC has
> any say or can really verify who (and most importantly - how someone) is
> using any of these numbers?
> The community decided to remove most of the barriers when 2013-03,
> 2014-02, 2014-05 were approved and implemented. These policy proposals
> removed all the 'old' requirements and cleaned up the IPv4 policy so much
> that anyone can now do whatever they want with their IPv4 space (not that
> they could have not done it in the past, but they would have to lie to the
> RIPE NCC if they would have ever needed an 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

On 10/19/16 11:05 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote:

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the 
final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to 
the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
I do not agree with this policy proposal and believe it will not fix 
anything, instead - it will harm the registry.

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

-Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of 
company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer 
restriction

this fixes only a tiny bit of the problem.

-Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 
available pool
this has nothing to do with the policy proposal. I feel it's just some 
candy offered to sweeten the proposal itself.


This was the short version of my response. Those reading this e-mail 
during working hours, you can go back to work ;) those that still have 
some popcorn left, feel free to read further.


Below are the 6 most important reasons why I believe this policy 
proposal should not become policy:


1. This policy proposal will create two types of members.

a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members 
that can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from 
the date this policy proposal would be implemented)
b. the members that have only received resources after September 2012 
and can not afford to buy IP IP addresses at the market prices (but they 
can buy an unlimited number of these from the RIPE NCC at ~€4,5 
(€3,4/1st year + €1,4/2nd year - redistribution of profit)


The first type of member would be allowed to participate in an IP 
transfer market that was (until the implementation of this policy 
proposal, if ever) accessible to everyone and anyone with resources 
received from the RIPE NCC or an other member.
The second type of member will not be allowed to participate in this IP 
transfer market unless they buy first from an other member.


Some members have already been able to transfer their /22 received from 
the last /8. With the implementation of this policy proposal (if ever) I 
feel that we as a community will discriminate between those that have 
received their last /22 (and want/need, for various reasons to transfer 
it) 2 or more years before implementation and those that have received 
less than 2 years before the implementation (or any time after).


I know some of you do not like analogies. But I would compare this with 
2 people buying their cars. The first can buy the car and sell it 2 
years later, only because the purchase happened even just a few days 
before the car industry decides that cars can no longer be sold further. 
So, those that have bought their car and used it for 1.5 years will have 
to return it (for free) to the car manufacturer while others could have 
sold it because they were quick in the purchase process and bought it 
earlier.


So, I think that once this policy proposal would be implemented (if 
ever) it would discriminate the second type of member as they will not 
be allowed to participate in a well established IP transfer market with 
the IP addresses received from the RIPE NCC (and only with the IP 
addresses they need to buy from the market first).



2. This policy proposal will create yet an other color of IP addresses.

I believe and hope that in the near future we will start talking about 
the removal of colors and not about addition of more colors. Numbers are 
just numbers. There is no difference between a number received in 1990, 
one received after 1992 or one that has status PI or PA. Now, we want to 
add a color for numbers received after 2012...


My router does not know any difference between these numbers and nobody 
really cares. Do you think that PI holders care that they are not 
supposed to sub-assign that space to other customers ? Do you think the 
RIPE NCC has any say or can really verify who (and most importantly - 
how someone) is using any of these numbers?
The community decided to remove most of the barriers when 2013-03, 
2014-02, 2014-05 were approved and implemented. These policy proposals 
removed all the 'old' requirements and cleaned up the IPv4 policy so 
much that anyone can now do whatever they want with their IPv4 space 
(not that they could have not done it in the past, but they would have 
to lie to the RIPE NCC if they would have ever needed an additional 
allocation). This policy proposal tends to take us back to previous way 
of thinking, an old one - I think.


So, just adding more colors and barriers will only complicate things. 
And I've always liked policies and procedures that are clear and simple. 
As simple as possible.



3. This policy proposal will drive some IPv4 transfers underground.

We already know and have seen it in previous presentations that where 
the RIR system tries to impose some limitations, the real world invents 
something to circumvent those 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

Hi Sander,

I hoped you would understand the idea and not hang on details.

Yes, an integration process can take days, weeks, months or years. There
are cases when placing a 24 months hold would make no difference but in
most cases I think (based on the experience with previous acquisitions at
my previous employer) it would affect the business.

Can you agree with me that in most of the cases at least the AS number will
become unuseful and that would be probably a lot sooner than the 24 months ?

Getting back to the fundaments, I will never support any policy that says
"it's better to put everybody in jail even if some are innocent instead of
letting everybody free even some might be criminals". This is wrong and
should be debated properly. The policy's goal has nothing to do with
bringing changes to the rules.

NCC says the changes do not have a notable impact. Then don't make the
changes !

Ciprian

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Ciprian,
>
> > As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into details. My
> previous employer has acuired probably over 100 other companies. Every case
> was particular and some took years to integrate. You can not sell the IPs
> before integrating their network.
>
> So then what is the problem with the 24 month holding period? It sounds
> like it works exactly as designed: you can't sell addresses immediately,
> but there is no problem selling then after a multi-year integration project.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

Agree with Sascha. As with the Allocated PI, in this situation RIPE
community would like to impose some policies which are against the most
common business practices. It is not efficient as it can at any time be
attacked in any civilized justice system. Can anyone bring out some data on
the "huge" abuse that took/takes place ? Let's not stop a supposedly abuse
by adopting abusive policies.

Ciprian

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Sascha Luck [ml]  wrote:

> You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture
> yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member
> of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately.
>
> As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M
> under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no
> business doing. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to the tactic
> of including the unpalatable with the desirable.  I would support
> 2015-04 if it restricted itself to collating transfer policy in
> one document without imposing further restrictions.
>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45:01PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>
>> What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like
>>> this:
>>>
>>
>> If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you
>> would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful
>> paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you
>> apparently so very much disagree with.
>>
>> As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into
>>> details. My previous employer has acuired probably over 100
>>> other companies. Every case was particular and some took years
>>> to integrate. You can not sell the IPs before integrating
>>> their network.
>>>
>>> In all the situations, even when we know there was an
>>> agreement for acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed
>>> overnight. The process is complex and involves approvals from
>>> various authorities, integration of the network, migration of
>>> customers and in the end you can draw the line and mark as
>>> unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.
>>>
>>
>> You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.
>> Note that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a
>> /22...".  In that case there would be no customers to move or
>> networks to merge.  I would say it is incumbent upon you to
>> justify that we should keep this loophole as wide as a truck in
>> the policy.
>>
>> The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of
>> abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put
>> a little bit more longevity into the availability of the
>> resources under that policy.  It may be that this diminishes
>> your company's prospects of near-future income, to which I would
>> say that basing your buisness on the abuse of something which is
>> perceived as a common resource is perhaps not worthy of so much
>> sympathy?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> - Håvard
>>
>>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes  wrote:

> > What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this:
>
> If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you
> would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful
> paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you
> apparently so very much disagree with.
>
> I express my ideas the way I think and I don't give lessons to anyone.


> > As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into details. My
> > previous employer has acuired probably over 100 other companies. Every
> case
> > was particular and some took years to integrate. You can not sell the IPs
> > before integrating their network.
> >
> > In all the situations, even when we know there was an agreement for
> > acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed overnight. The process is
> > complex and involves approvals from various authorities, integration of
> the
> > network, migration of customers and in the end you can draw the line and
> > mark as unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.
>
> You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.  Note
> that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...".  In
> that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge.  I
> would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this
> loophole as wide as a truck in the policy.
>
> The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse
> against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little
> bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that
> policy.  It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of
> near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on
> the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is
> perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy?
>
>
Again, unfunded personal attacks. Why do you have to analyze the person and
not the idea. Who gives you the right to accuse make such allegations and
what is the purpose of this ? Have I taken advantage of a loophole ? Just
let everyone know about it, like I did in regard to one of the chairs,
don't throw accusations just because you don't agree with me.



> Regards,
>
> - Håvard
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:

As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M
under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no
business doing.


Please educate me why the community has no business doing this.
I would have thought that was well within scope for the address
policy.


In market-based economies, M -including the disposal of
assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, 
a state regulator, which the NCC is NOT.

It is unthinkable in such a society that business decisions are
subject to the whim of random people on a mailing list. The
RIPE NCC recognises that and puts M firmly outside policy.
Where it should remain unless the desire is that every transfer
application or M notification start with filing suit against
the NCC.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture
yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member
of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately.

As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M
under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no
business doing. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to the tactic
of including the unpalatable with the desirable.  I would support
2015-04 if it restricted itself to collating transfer policy in
one document without imposing further restrictions.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45:01PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:

What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like
this:


If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you
would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful
paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you
apparently so very much disagree with.


As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into
details. My previous employer has acuired probably over 100
other companies. Every case was particular and some took years
to integrate. You can not sell the IPs before integrating
their network.

In all the situations, even when we know there was an
agreement for acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed
overnight. The process is complex and involves approvals from
various authorities, integration of the network, migration of
customers and in the end you can draw the line and mark as
unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.


You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.
Note that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a
/22...".  In that case there would be no customers to move or
networks to merge.  I would say it is incumbent upon you to
justify that we should keep this loophole as wide as a truck in
the policy.

The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of
abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put
a little bit more longevity into the availability of the
resources under that policy.  It may be that this diminishes
your company's prospects of near-future income, to which I would
say that basing your buisness on the abuse of something which is
perceived as a common resource is perhaps not worthy of so much
sympathy?

Regards,

- H?vard

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2016 David Croft scripsit:

> Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
> assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
> on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not
> the intention.

Thanks for the support.

> I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement
> text for the "Contractual Requirements"

That doesn't seem neccessary as the point in question - the definiton
of a sub-assignment - is specified in the new version of ripe-655.

What are you missing?

Best
Max
-- 
<@Placebox> Gibts eigentlich IRGENDWAS im IT-Bereich, was nicht a priori 
komplett scheiße ist?
<@Zugschlus> all software sucks

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Havard Eidnes]

> Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write
> in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I
> oppose this policy.
>
> Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it
> doesn't. It brings up important changes which are commented by people with
> no experience in mergers and acquisitions.
>
> While working for RCS I have seen many takovers and acquisitions and I
> know how the process goes. It's not always easy and definitely complicated.

This basically says "I know this process, you don't, I won't tell
you the details, instead trust me!"

I would say that I would completely understand if this doesn't
carry any weight with the majority of the participants here, and
is probably unlikely to sway opinion in your favour.

> Why do we need to put more stones in front of the wagon? An acquisition is
> not just signing a transfer agreement. For regular transfers it's ok to
> have a 24 months hold period, but asimilating a regular transfer with a
> company acquisition is wrong.  Buying a company needs to be documented with
> official, state issued, documents.  That is if I prove that I legally
> acquired a company, why would you think that it's something fishy and the
> purpose was to hide a simple transfer of IPs?  The two are nowhere near to
> be compared. The acquisition process takes time and money which represents
> already enough reasons not to mask a transfer this way.

My guess: because there is a widespread perception (right or wrong)
that the mergers and aquisitions procedure has been abused (in the
past?) to violate the intention of the "last /8" policy.  The ease
with which companies can be formed in some jurisdictions does not
provide what's seen as a sufficient push-back against abusing this
avenue of forming companies solely for the purpose of getting a /22
out of the last /8 with the (not so well hidden) intention of simply
merging this company with another once the resource has been issued,
and then transferring the resource out of the merged company.

Regards,

- Håvard

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

[Ciprian Nica]

Hi,

Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write
in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I
oppose this policy.

Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it
doesn't. It brings up important changes which are commented by people with
no experience in mergers and acquisitions.

While working for RCS I have seen many takovers and acquisitions and I
know how the process goes. It's not always easy and definitely complicated.
Why do we need to put more stones in front of the wagon ? An acquisition is
not just signing a transfer agreement. For regular transfers it's ok to
have a 24 months hold period, but asimilating a regular transfer with a
company acquisition is wrong.  Buying a company needs to be documented with
official, state issued, documents. That is if I prove that I legally
acquired a company, why would you think that it's something fishy and the
purpose was to hide a simple transfer of IPs ? The two are nowhere near to
be compared. The acquisition process takes time and money which represents
already enough reasons not to mask a transfer this way.

Ciprian






On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Stefan van Westering 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just like the other proposal (2016-03) i support this proposal and thus:
> I say +1 for this proposal.
>
> Again if this is not the right place or need extra motivation to be noted,
> let me know.
>
> *With kind regards,*
>
>
>
> *Stefan van Westering*
>
>
>
> *SoftTech Automatisering B.V.*
>
>
>
> Op 19 okt. 2016 om 21:04 heeft Sander Steffann  het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hello Marius,
>
> Thank you for the explanations, but I believe you haven't really addressed
> the issues I mentioned.
>
> The first issue is ABOUT Transfer Policies, to pay the annual membership
> fee after you TRANSFER ALL YOUR RESOURCES and maybe even close your
> Company, is about Transfer Policies.
>
>
> No, that is about your contractual agreement with the RIPE NCC.
>
> Your second answer is very subjective, have you ever buy and merge
> Companies? I've done that a couple of times, you never sell the company's
> (you merge) resources before the merge, because that company doesn't belong
> to you before the merge and is not you to decide regarding selling anything
> of that Company resources, either that is IP or fiber optic cable. Is NOT
> AT ALL what you mention:"First acquiring them only to immediately sell them
> again is explicitly not allowed by RIPE policy". What this have to do with
> the situation I mention ??? Please refer to the situation I mention, not on
> other matters that have nothing to do with it.
>
>
> This is exactly the situation you mention: you buy a company, acquiring
> all their assets. One of those assets is an IPv4 allocation from RIPE NCC.
> To prevent speculation with IPv4 resources it is not allowed to sell those
> resources within 24 months of acquiring them.
>
> So in your case: buy the company, keep it running as a separate
> company/LIR for a little while, sort out where you want to transfer the
> resources you don't need, then merge the companies/LIRs.
>
> So, no problem.
> Sander
>
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

[Ciprian Nica]

Dear Carlos,

What I was trying to say is that if we try not to complicate things then we
can say there were IPs given to LIRs which they would distribute to the
end-users and those IPs should remain under LIR's control and there were
IPs given to end users through LIRs. The status of the IPs is just a text.
Everything has to be based on contracts between RIR -> LIR and LIR ->
user.  It is not important what the status was, the IPs were and are used
exactly the same way. And you are wrong, having a PA assignment doesn't
restrict you at all. Everybody accepts /24 announcements no matter their
status and it's no longer the case with RIPE's recommended longest prefix.
That was changed to /24 long time ago.

So today if someone has a /24 assigned PA from an LIR, he can announce it
through whatever ISPs he wants and doens't need to have anything to do with
the LIR except from the agreement through which he got the IPs from the LIR.

As for the PI assignments that were made from PI allocations, the purpose
was indeed to make a distinctions between multihomed users and those who
used only the LIR as their upstream provider, it was supposed to help with
the aggregation but it was never respected. Always there have been PA
assignments used exactly the same way as PI assignments and, even though I
had objections at the time, NCC said that's perfectly ok.

Now, if the PI assignment holder doesn't have a contract with the LIR, then
what are we talking about, he should return the IPs immediately. If he has
an agreement, they can continue happily with that agreement even if the
status would change from PI to PA.

>From my point of view it's a simple solution to a not very complicated
problem. But as I mentioned it's always about the money. I have no interest
in this, I don't have any PI blocks (either allocated or assigned) and I
support the logic behind the process. I would consider it an abuse if NCC
would interfere between an LIR and it's customer and I don't think that we,
the RIPE community, should support something like that. By adopting a
policy which would probably break some contracts could result in some legal
complaints. And why are we doing this ? Just for a few silvers ?

Ciprian



On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Carlos Friacas  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>
> I agree with Daniel. A well defined problem is half of the solution.
>>
>
> +1.
>
> In this particular case the problem arises because the main question is
>> who makes the money, the LIR or the end user.
>>
>
> And when noone is really "making money", but is just using the number
> resources as they were originally distributed...???
>
>
> In the past there have been PAs used as PIs
>>
>
> Yes. But that doesn't qualify as "a mess" or "swamp"?
>
>
> so technically I think the "allocated" part should be the one that's more
>> important, therefore I would support the replacement of allocated pi &
>> unspecified to allocated pa.
>>
>
> Why would you want to change status of something that belongs/is in use by
> other organizations?
> With or without agreement from the end user (and LIR)?
>
>
> If you ignore the greed then changing the status would not make any
>> difference.
>>
>
> Maybe we need to revisit how this "issue" was created in the first
> place... (and when).
>
>
> Ripe has a relation with the LIR and the LIR with the customer.
>>
>
> 1st part is true. 2nd part i really wish it was true... this (ALLOCATED
> PI/UNSPECIFIED blocks) is not LEGACY space, but there are some tricky
> details too... :-(
>
>
> Changing PI to PA will not affect the workability of the IPs nor the
>> relations that are already in place.
>>
>
> Yes they can be. and this can probably be observed from the routing
> info.
>
> Example: LIR manages /16, everything is PI, so every /24 is already
> "globally routable". Once that /16 automagically becomes PA, anyone in the
> world can happilly reject any /24 from the /16. This is even harder if end
> users are not using the same upstream and/or don't even have any
> relationship with the LIR -- can happen, does happen because this goes
> wayy back.
>
> Please keep in mind this still comes from the 20th century... ;-)
>
>
> Changing them to regular pi assignments would break the link between lir
>> and customer and give the enduser a possibility to make money, nothing more.
>>
>
> ???
> Afaik, they are already PI. The link is (probably) mostly broken, and,
> imho that's the core of the "monster" we have to deal with ;-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos
>
>
>
> Ciprian
>>
>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Daniel Stolpe  wrote:
>>
>>   Thanks for the update and summary Sander!
>>
>>   I have been thinking a bit both during this particular case and in
>> general about something from another working group. Job introduced the
>> concept of
>>   "numbered work items" with several phases and where the first phase
>> reads like (quote):
>>
>>   phase 

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[David Croft]

Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not
the intention.

I note that the "New policy text" does not specify the replacement
text for the "Contractual Requirements"

Regards,
David

On 21 October 2016 at 10:15, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments 
> as subnets of /64 and shorter.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
>
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>  before 21 November 2016.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>



-- 
David Croft

For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net
and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694

Sargasso Networks Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 06404839.
Registered Office: 46a Albert Road North, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9EL

http://www.sargasso.net/

[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

[Marco Schmidt]

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification"
is now available for discussion.

The goal of this proposal is to define sub-assignments in IPv6 PI assignments 
as subnets of /64 and shorter.

You can find the full proposal at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 before 21 November 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum