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

[Roger Jørgensen]

Ciprian Nica,

If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something
take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST!

Can you please for now just shut up with your noise?




Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever,

can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and
possible forced unsub?



On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ciprian Nica  wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and
>> block things when
>> they see clear abuse.
>
>
> Here is the fact:
>
> % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
>
> % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59
>
> % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
>
>
> inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
>
> netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417
>
> descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH
>
> country:DE
>
> org:ORG-TA16-RIPE
>
>
> % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
>
> % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41
>
> % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
>
>
> inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
>
> netname:DE-SPACE-20140417
>
> descr:  SpaceNet AG
>
> country:DE
>
>
>
> 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22
> which was never announced in the internet.
>
> Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a /22
> just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.
>
> I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
> accusations. These are the facts.
>
> So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community. Praise
> him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out.
>
> Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind
> of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my
> opinion ?
>
>
>



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jim Reid  wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:
...
>>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address
>>> policy WG.
>>
>> Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more
>> thankless by the day.
>
> +100. I’m stunned beyond disbelief that Gert’s (or Sander’s) credentials 
> could even questioned.

Guess it's a last resort when they see that they are running out of
arguments? And amazing that
some people have turned to "personal" attacks here rather than
discussing the policy at hand.


Either way - well handled Gert, you got my full support.



Regarding the policy at hand, even considering Nick Hillard's argument
it's hard to not support
this policy. It at least try to solve a almost impossible problem to
solve, better to do some
than nothing? So a clear support from me.



And our MAIN problem is the few players that really really hard try to
game the system, they
should be banned somehow but that's hard.

I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and
block things when
they see clear abuse.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> Il 23/05/2016 14:38, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> thank you for your questions. I try to answer below
>>
>> Il 21/05/2016 09:45, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>>
>> 
>>
>> So I ask _again_, where is the IPv4 need? What type of usage is it ment
> for? We've passed the "it's nice to have" some years ago, now we're down to
> , do you _really_ need 10 addresses? Can you survive with 2 and deploy IPv6?
>
> I think I answered, It's not nice to have, It's business demand and LIRs
> should be able to offer... with a /22 I can serve just up to 2 or 3 of my
> tipical business  customers.
> This is lack of competitiveness.
>

sorry if I sound hard/insulting, to me it sounds like you have an outdated
business model that are doomed to go down soon, you can't grow this way.
Change to IPv6 where you actual can have some growth and option for the
future.


What you are illustrating is that somehow, despite all the effort from many
parties the world do not seems to understand that there are no more IPv4,
the growth has to come from IPv6.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> thank you for your questions. I try to answer below
>
> Il 21/05/2016 09:45, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>
> 
>
> Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter?
> Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?
>
>
>
> It's happening: end customers of new operators (read as new LIRs) are
> requesting new services such as datacenters or multihoming and IPv6
> deployment in the meanwhile.
> Those are the tipical request that I reiceve. For example to multihome and
> bgp a customer I need a /24
> What if I have no address space to provide?  I can ask my customer to sign
> up and he will get a /22 automatically wasting a 3 x /24
> I think in many cases this is why we are registering such new sign up
> growth trends.
> I already said in past emails that when I started our business of fiber
> optic provider the carrier said to us "ask us for transport and access but
> not for addresses. sign up and get yours"
> This is reflecting in all the chain from top to bottom. This could be a
> point where to act. If we turn the request re-introducing justification and
> we turn minimum request to a /24
> we can address this kind of problem while slowing down LIRs sign up rate
> to obtain a /23 or /24 to address this kind of requests
>
>
> hope this help in understand small player needings
>
>
You have given me no real reason, just nice to have. We passed nice to have
some years ago.

End users cannot continue to get a /24, there are not enough address space
for that, sorry but that's life. Sure some operators have enough and that's
unfair for others. Only way for them to get something like that is to
either become LIR, or use IPv6. Why is it so hard to understand that?


So I ask _again_, where is the IPv4 need? What type of usage is it ment
for? We've passed the "it's nice to have" some years ago, now we're down to
, do you _really_ need 10 addresses? Can you survive with 2 and deploy IPv6?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool
> to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received).
> These “final /22” allocations will receive a separate status with several
> restrictions:
>
> -These allocation are not transferrable
> -LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition
> -Sub-allocations are not possible
> -Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03


Hi all,

Based on the extended discussion on the other proposal on the table
and that we are supposed to work together toward consensus I got
a few questions to the community regarding this proposal.


Since this proposal opened the door on introducing restriction on
an IPv4 block I'll follow that up...

1.) what sort of restriction are we willing to put on address space? How
and where, and in what direction can we think of restriction? On where
it be used? On how it can be used, and what type of restriction?
You have to publish IPv6 for any services/things using this address
space?



2.) the second part of the question, please do not mix it up with the
first one, how can restriction be implemented and enforced? Do we
have to introduce "need based requests" again? RPKI? Withdraw?
Just - if we're following the path of restriction, what tools do we have
available?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 June 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:02:43PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation
>> Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 June 2016.
>
> this has been decided by proposers and WG chairs based on your discussion
> and the upcoming AP meeting at RIPE72 (next wednesday) - keep the proposal
> active until after the discussion there (see below), then decide how to
> proceed.
>
>
> From the discussion it was very clear that there is no consensus today
> to go ahead - without going into detail, it's clear that there are two
> strong factions, one that wants to preserve the remaining /22s for
> "as long as possible", while the other one wants to ease the pain for
> those LIRs that have too little IPv4 today, willing to incur earlier
> total run-out as a consequence.

Since we've supposed to work toward something that can gain consensus
I've got a few questions for the authors, and those supporting 2015-05.


So far all I've heard, I might have missed something, is that there is a
need for more addresses. None have said why, or where there is a
need. Why do you need more addresses and for what?

Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter?
Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Marco Schmidt  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy"
> is now available for discussion.

What really amaze me. We are using tons of time here in ag-wg talking
over IPv4 while there is not half that activity over in IPv6-wg.


I take that as a statement that everyone know everything there is to
know about IPv6, there are nothing more to discuss or learn, no
questions to ask, we are all using it so very few people are left
behind in IPv4 land... soon to be isolated island not able to talk
with anyone.

... is that how it is?



Why aren't all of you with HUGE and MAJOR problem (sorry for the caps)
with lack of IPv4 address over in IPv6-wg bombing us with question on
how to get out of your current trouble?
Asking all kind of stupid and newbie questions? I'm very sure there
are tons of people standing in line to help you out.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6





PS 1 : chairs - I object to this policy and the other one trying to
sort a problem that can't be sorted in IPv4 land, only IPv6 can.


PS 2 : Nick Hillard summarized it very well here:

Like the curate's egg, this proposal is good in parts. Here's the good part:

> - Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to
> all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not
> been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA


-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net> wrote:

>
> Il 11/05/2016 09:02, Roger Jørgensen ha scritto:
>
> 
>
> minor correction, it is a state that was reached once IANA allocated the
> last /8 to all the RIR's, and it affect _all_ address space after that point.
>
>
>
>
> If I am not wrong standing on the information collected on this list the
> new allocation criteria was triggered when first allocation from 185/8 has
> been made.
>
> Please see Ingrid Wijte email 20/04/2016 to the list
> [...]
> The RIPE NCC started to allocate from 185/8 on 14 September 2012, when we
> could no longer satisfy a request for address space without touching 185/8.
> That moment triggered section 5.1 that states that RIPE NCC members can
> request a one time /22 allocation (1,024 IPv4 addresses).
> [...]
>
>
... too early in the morning, you're right. My point was that it affect all
IPv4 addresses after that point in time, not just 185.




-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Martin Huněk  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

hello and welcome :-)



> The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little
> bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor
> change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from
> pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving
> LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool.
> That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you
> would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR
> region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.

The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to
regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's
find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger
company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's
say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
<ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

>>As Roger Jørgensen has explained, once the policy was triggered, it
>> was to apply to all subsequent allocations.
>
> However, in the meantime some events happened:
>  - recovered space issue - space returned to IANA 2012-05 to 2014-04 and
>  gradually returned starting 2014-05

already known, space would be returned, and redistributed, it would still
be covered by the policy since it would cover all allocation after that point
in time.


>  - 2013-03 - no need checking
>  - 2014-04 - no ipv6 requirement

adjustment, as we do with all policy. Maybe we should make it harder
to get IPv4 space? ... but how would that help on the part we really need,
more IPv6? Also it might over time make the RIR registry incomplete
and full of error, that will hurt the Internet way more than the current
gaming actual harm... as sad as that is... :-(


>  - still keeping a high (~= /8) level of "somehow available space"

as said earlier, it does not matter, the policy was there to safeguard
some space for future startups. We are just lucky that the space has
grown due to return and reallocation!


>  - policy abuse, pushing to limits and general change in "who is a LIR"
>  (get-to-transfer, multi-LIR/company, out-of-continent LIRs - more and
>  more of them, corporate LIRs or simply "just want my damn ASN and /24"
>  LIRs)

... and here we are again back at the core, the abuse/gaming the system
to get more address space. The only real solution to this is to deploy
IPv6. Handing out more address space than  /22 is not a solution
because there will always be a need for more. There is no upper limit
and we just run out way faster, and as said over and over again, that
will ruin the point with this policy - safeguard some space for the future
startups.



I am happy with giving RIPE NCC power to turn down request from
obvious fake company... however that has it's own problem and not
all of them are solvable by this working group, some might not be
solvable at all.


> I hope everybody does realize how this proposal came to life.

giving out more space to those that ask for it is not a good solution
with the future in mind. However if everyone want to be greedy here
and now and say screw the future (sorry the language)...



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
 wrote:

> If it can get more support, why not ?
> 5 stars, why not ? (actually I have some idea why, and it wouldn't
> bother me)


To me it seems like there are a not so minor misunderstanding right
here. It is not so much about getting MORE support, since we do not
vote.

What we do are working toward a overall good solution. Unfortunately
there are no real good solution, our only option is to change
protocol, and with that change some pain will follow which it seems
like you and other are experience. Embrace the future, don't run from
it and avoid facing it, that is my suggestion.


The current policy is there to keep some space in reserve for future
startups so they can have _some_ IPv4 space for whatever reason, it is
NOT there to give current startups enough IPv4 space, that is just not
possible. All pools are either empty or they are running out, and due
to ongoing cleanup we are so lucky that there has been IPv4 space
returned so the runout will take longer, that is we have _some_ IPv4
space longer than we initial thought was possible! Let us not waste
that with being greedy here and now.


The only IPv4 left are what can be found from redistribution or
splitting up of already allocated IPv4 space, that has it's own
ballpark of trouble associated with it, an entire different
discussion.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”)

[Roger Jørgensen]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:

 Dear colleagues,


 A proposed change to RIPE Document Contractual Requirements for Provider
 Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region is now available
 for discussion.


 You can find the full proposal at:

 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-08

 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
 address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 21 November 2014.

late but support from me


-- 

Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no