subject:"\[address\-policy\-wg\] 2016\-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 \(Locking Down the Final \/8 Policy\)"

Hi,

> Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed 
> arguments about ALLOCATED PI.

My auto-complete is getting too used to IPv6 terminology ;)
s/-local/./

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Radu,

>>> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE
>> 
>> ???
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa
> 
> ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.

Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed 
arguments about ALLOCATED PI.

Cheers!
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-21 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 11:06, Sander Steffann wrote:

> > PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE
> 
> ???

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa

ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Randy,

> i have had an epiphany!  RIR stands for Rinse and Infinite Repeat.  this
> expains it all.  i feel much better now.

Good one ;)
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Patrick,

> What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? 
> Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL"  :-)

Nope, only the allocation will get a different status. The LIR can still use it 
like before, assign from it etc.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Riccardo,

> If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy 
> example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before 
> 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of 
> allocation from who didn't.

Every LIR can receive that allocation.

> PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE

???

> I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about different 
> colors allocations:
> https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
> https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

Thank you, I know very well what happened in my own working group.

> [...]
> RIPE NCC encourages:
> - LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
> “Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to convert 
> PI addresses into PA addresses.”
> - LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
> - Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
> [...]

That is from a slide talking about ALLOCATED PI, you seem to be taking it out 
of context and applying it to all PI.

> I am not thinking my arguments are false.

Yeah, that bit is obvious. However, you have repeated your point over and over 
again without providing any convincing data to back it up, so we're stopping 
this argument now. Feel free to discuss other issues you see, but the "class-b 
LIRs" argument has now been discussed, considered and found incorrect.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-21 Thread Patrick Velder


Hi

What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED 
FINAL"? Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL"  :-)


Regards
Patrick

On 21.06.2016 09:17, Riccardo Gori wrote:


Hi Sander,

Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,


Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators 
but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

There is none, please stop repeating that.

I can ask the same
If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new 
fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation 
created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received 
such kind of allocation from who didn't.
Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such 
allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating.
The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so 
informed about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" 
and not using them to discriminate between allocations.


PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same 
for an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"?


At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status 
of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with 
status that cause issues"
You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED 
UNSPECIFIED. This means discrimination between allocation creates 
problem to LIRs.
I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE 
meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it.


I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about 
different colors allocations:

https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

[...]
RIPE NCC encourages:
- LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
“Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to 
convert PI addresses into PA addresses.”

- LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
- Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
[...]


I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?

This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

read above.

Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR 
gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.

True but unnecessary

What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 
addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the 
way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past 
are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) 
hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give 
out at all anymore.
I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just 
thanking again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here.

But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous 
message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has 
to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments 
considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be 
put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those 
same rejected arguments.

Cheers,
Sander


I am not thinking my arguments are false.
regards
Riccardo
--



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 toi...@wirem.net
 Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-21 Thread Riccardo Gori


Hi Sander,

Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,


Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators 
but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

There is none, please stop repeating that.

I can ask the same
If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new 
fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation 
created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received 
such kind of allocation from who didn't.
Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such 
allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating.
The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so informed 
about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" and not 
using them to discriminate between allocations.


PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same for 
an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"?


At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status 
of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with status 
that cause issues"
You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED. 
This means discrimination between allocation creates problem to LIRs.
I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE 
meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it.


I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about 
different colors allocations:

https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf
https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

[...]
RIPE NCC encourages:
- LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA
“Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to 
convert PI addresses into PA addresses.”

- LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI
- Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA
[...]




I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?

This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

read above.


Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR 
gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.

True but unnecessary


What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 
addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the 
way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past 
are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) 
hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give 
out at all anymore.
I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just thanking 
again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here.


But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous 
message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has 
to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments 
considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be 
put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those 
same rejected arguments.

Cheers,
Sander


I am not thinking my arguments are false.
regards
Riccardo
--



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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-21 Thread Arash Naderpour

>
>
>
> This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
> burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
> with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>
>
When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Arash

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Sander Steffann

Hi Riccardo,

> Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against 
> speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

There is none, please stop repeating that.

> I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?

This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR 
gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22. 

What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 
addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the 
way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past 
are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) 
hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give 
out at all anymore.

But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous 
message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has 
to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments 
considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be 
put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those 
same rejected arguments.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Riccardo Gori


Hi Gert,

thank you for your reply


Il 20/06/2016 10:00, Gert Doering ha scritto:

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 05:02:50PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:

Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto:

hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to
already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want
to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
trade, instead of "use for

This would disvantage every LIR that received or will reiceve an
ad-normal PA allocation.

You keep repeating this, which does not make it more true.

Please explain how this proposal would affect a LIR that intends to use
the /22 to number its customers (and/or its own infrastructure), and is not
intending to sell off the address space as quickly as possible to make a
quick profit.
Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against 
speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs.

I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be?
Let's choose that in the future only ALLOCATED-FINAL can be 
transferabble 'cause those allocation are for higher prospective of an 
IPv6 transition (we don't force IPv6 adoption) and old allocation can 
stay stuck there and unused so we can go 6 happier.


To be serius:
If you allow the creation of a category-b LIR I can't see positivity in 
it. A less capable LIR born invalid.
Suppose your business for some reason has lot of customers for exmaple 
'cause you grows dual stack and IPv6 is spreading.
You can sell it one piece, but can happen you can even sell only 
customers and infrastructure and the acquiring company has enough 
address space or simply not interested because working IPv6. You may 
want to transfer part of space to your new company just created to set 
up a new datacenter or just keep on with IPv6 transition consulting 
services.
You may even want transfer part of the space to companies that need it. 
Why shouldn't be possible?
This LIR did no speculation at all, actually did really a good job of 
moving customers IPv6 and growing a company.
Just reached the task that is not even more mentioned in IPv4 allocation 
policy today.
Where's the quick profit? years of work on IPv4/IPv6 transition with 
infrastructure costs, ip transit and so on?





Please leave the idea of ab-normal LIRs.

This is not an "idea" but observed behaviour by a few bad actors.

We must find the way to hurt only the few bad actors not all new LIRs.


[..]

Nobody protects new LIRs speculator stockpile /22 in a zero cost
company/person without network or assignements and black sell it the
same day it has been allocated
with a private contract registered elsewhere from RIPE database.
This policy is useless. Audit and control is useful, transparency is a
must we discussed it at last general

This paragraph does not make sense.

Yes, people can get a /22 and "black sell it", even with 2016-01 - but
the risk for the buyer is much higher than getting a "white" /22 on the
address market, because the seller has to keep open the LIR forever in
this case - and if the LIR is ever closed, the /22 has to be returned to
the RIPE NCC.   So why should a buyer take this risk?

Elvis gived later today an example of what's happening in ARIN about that.
I think we all would prefer transparency.


Gert Doering
 -- APWG chair

regards
Riccardo
--

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Alexey Galaev

I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a different 
take on it. 

We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This 
proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new LIR's. 
But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more effectively and 
stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for ALL current IPv4 
blocks? For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as 
unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and unused 
space from first /8? And what the differnce between old and new LIR's? 

Also we need simple rules and right for all. A lot of new statuses and fields 
is not good to perception system.

BR,
Alexey Galaev
+7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru

- Исходное сообщение -
От: "Stefan Prager" <cont...@prager-it.com>
Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Отправленные: Суббота, 18 Июнь 2016 г 13:58:48
Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 
2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote:
> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the 
> change itself is not part of current policy?

I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip Provider 
Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of their rights solely justified by your 
belief that this is how allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012 are 
supposed to be treated. If you are concerned about people selling off address 
space allocated after the 14th September 2012 for profit you can propose to 
change the holding period from two years to three or four years or even 
introduce a transfer fee like other Regional Internet Registries(RIRs) have in 
place. Such changes would be just and apply to all Provider Aggregatable(PA) 
allocations and not just to Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations allocated 
after the 14th September 2012.

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Peter Koch

Hi Gert,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

> But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
> to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly

I'd hope you're at least half kidding here.  While I'd agree that

> This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and
> I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good".

is about to explore the edges of what can be reasonable dealt with in a
consensus based process under runout conditions, any eternity stamp on policy
would be unwise not only for formal reasons, but also because it would
prohibit clarifications and more substantial actions in this whac-a-mole
game.  The PDP, though, already gives the chairs some leeway of throttling or
dampening the influx of proposals.

-Peter

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Peter Koch

Remco,

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not 
> just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different 
> from the first version.

I have read version 2, also in comparison with version 1. Thanks for removing
the DNS and route: objects restrictions.

> Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 
> space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that 
> tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire 
> allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple 
> of years from now.

while the intent is laudable, making it a requirement under 5.1 mixes
the formal part and the informational in a confusing way.  That said,
does "should reserve at least part of this allocation for interoperability with
networks that are only reachable using IPv4" mean "should assign at least part
of this allocation ... to itself"?

And further along the lines of educational text: the references in section need
some re-adjustment (this isn't new in 2.0, but for good housekeeping) since
RFC 3330 has been finally obsoleted by RFC 6890 (and may or may not be 
applicable
anyway) and RFC 2993 isn't really the final word on NAT any more, especially
with that earlier remark on "for interoperability with networks that are only
reachable using IPv4".

The clarification part remains complicated because of indirections: 5.3 refers 
to
5.1 only, but the new "ALLOCATED FINAL" then extends the validity across the
remaining sections.  I'd suggest to give up 5.3 and merge the new text with the
final paragraph of 5.2 accordingly.

-Peter

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Jan Ingvoldstad

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aleksey Bulgakov 
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for
> undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all -
> members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns
> when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it
> again. The IPs aren't burn (it is not oil or gas) even some one sell
> it. Simply the owner is some LIR but not the NCC. May be it will
> increase the price, no more. But the NCC wants to have exclusive
> rights to sell it (but RIPE is not organisation to make profit or I am
> wrong? :) ) and creates new proposals.
>

You are wrong in the sense of "not even wrong".

1) It's not about 185/8
2) It's not "burning" as in setting fire to something, but as in further
reducing the available address space for registration.
3) You've got the whole "ownership" thing mixed up.
4) You've got the whole "rights to sell" thing mixed up.
5) You've got the whole "make profit" thing mixed up.

-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Radu Gheorghiu


Hi,

Do we actually know how many such instances exists where someone spawned 
LIRs for profit? I don't care how many LIRs a company has spawned, I 
care if they did it for profit. I doubt we have any idea. To be honest I 
think we are debating a policy here based on the supposition that there 
are a lot of LIRs doing this, without any actual proof.


And even if they did it for profit, it's not like the IPs are going in 
some other galaxy. They remain in the RIPE region part of some LIR. That 
LIR will eventually either close, or transfer their IPv4. So it's not 
like the IPv4 is vanishing. I don't see where the problem is. The IPv4 
pool is going to be depleted sooner or later, no matter what policy we 
come up to meanwhile. What then?


The real solution is to stop changing policy, or lower the "/22" 
allocation size to "/24". This will provide a good enough start in terms 
of IPv4 resources, and the newly established LIRs are free to get their 
extra IPv4 from somewhere else, just like they are free to get their 
resources from somewhere else when they start with just a "/22".


Regards,
Radu Gheorghiu

On 06/20/2016 12:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.

When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Yes.  But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.

Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not
run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.

  - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?

If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you
close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will
be returned).

If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely,
some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set
aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many
others see as immoral and abusive.

But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer
the question.

Gert Doering
 -- NetMaster

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Aleksey Bulgakov

Trading is restricted by 2015-01. Don't you see it? Open the transfer
statistics and look it. But WG find the problem where is not a
problem.

2016-06-20 12:16 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
>> > This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
>> > burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
>> > with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>>
>> When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
>> to be returned to RIPE NCC.
>
> Yes.  But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.
>
> Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not
> run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.
>
>  - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?
>
> If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you
> close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will
> be returned).
>
> If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely,
> some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set
> aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many
> others see as immoral and abusive.
>
> But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer
> the question.
>
> Gert Doering
> -- NetMaster
> --
> 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



-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Gert Doering

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> > This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
> > burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
> > with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>
> When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
> to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Yes.  But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.

Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not
run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.

 - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?

If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you
close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will
be returned).

If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely,
some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set 
aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many 
others see as immoral and abusive.

But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer
the question.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Peter Hessler

On 2016 Jun 20 (Mon) at 10:04:33 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote:
:But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
:to the IPv4 policy

+1


-- 
The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that
procession but carrying a banner.
-- Mark Twain

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Jim Reid

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 14:05, Arash Naderpour  wrote:
> 
> IPv6 is not the answer for everything no matter how manytime you repeat that

More or bigger IPv4 allocations from the NCC are not the answer no matter how 
often you repeat that either.

So what are you doing to do?

Any efforts you make to get more/bigger IPv4 allocations from the NCC are 
doomed to fail. There isn’t any left. Well not enough to give everyone as much 
as they think they need or want. Even if you could consensus for a more liberal 
allocation policy for IPv4, we’ll burn through the remaining IPv4 address space 
in a matter of weeks. At that point we’re right back where you started: out of 
IPv4 and whining for more. Except this time there is absolutely nothing left at 
the NCC for anyone.

Wouldn’t your effort be better spent doing something about IPv6 deployment in 
your network and in your country?

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Aleksey Bulgakov

Hi.

I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for
undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all -
members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns
when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it
again. The IPs aren't burn (it is not oil or gas) even some one sell
it. Simply the owner is some LIR but not the NCC. May be it will
increase the price, no more. But the NCC wants to have exclusive
rights to sell it (but RIPE is not organisation to make profit or I am
wrong? :) ) and creates new proposals.

2016-06-20 11:42 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:30PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
>> > THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!
>>
>> And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations
>> and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?
>
> This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
> burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
> with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>
> 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

-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Gert Doering

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:30PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> > THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!
> 
> And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations
> and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread William Waites

Gert Doering  writes:

> But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further
> changes to the IPv4 policy

For what it's worth, the new version suits us just fine. Marking the
numbers as non-transferrable should raise the barrier for
speculators which seems likely to help the situation. Raising the
barrier much higher would put new entrants, particularly in rural areas
in conditions of market failure at a serious disadvantage. I would still
like to see some requirement to demonstrate that addresses are actually
assigned and in use even in the case of mergers though.

Best wishes,
-w

-- 
William Waites
Network Engineer
HUBS AS60241

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Arash Naderpour

> THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!
>

And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations
and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?

Arash

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Arash Naderpour

IPv6 is not the answer for everything no matter how manytime you repeat
that, it is not availble and possible to deploy everywhere.

Arash

On Friday, 17 June 2016, Jim Reid  wrote:

>
> > On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied  > wrote:
> >
> > Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow
> more people on the earth to gain access to the Internet.
>
> Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort
> that’s being wasted here haggling over the dregs of v4 would be better
> spent deploying IPv6.
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-20 Thread Gert Doering

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an
> argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05:
> A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent"
> space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to
> "less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes".
> They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and
> they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose
> for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that
> it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining
> /23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became
> non-legitimate over-night ?

I would consider this also as a fringe case - legitimate according to the
letter of the policy, but not according to the spirit.   These /22s are
not for trading.

But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly
irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same
time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally
ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you
wouldn't have any space at all today.

This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and
I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good".

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Jan Ingvoldstad

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

>
> What exactly means stockpiling ? Opening additional LIRs to satisfy one
> organisation's own need ?
>

No, to "stockpile" is to store something without using it. "Need" doesn't
come into it.

> In what is stockpiling "last /8 space" worse than "stokpiling IP space"
> in general ? Especially for already-acquired space ?
>
>
What is done, is done.

Stockpiling *more* space means there will be even less even more quickly
for future LIRs, or fewer future LIRs, and it also increases operating
costs, because the IP space available on the market becomes less even more
quickly.

You seem to think it's a problem that already-acquired space is "unused",
why don't you think it's a problem that even more space stays "unused"?

-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread NTX NOC

I oppose this proposal too.

1) it limits in rights all new LIRs. As I told in previous discussions
LIR stats show the same rate of new LIR registration (250-300 LIRs avg)
per month. It's about 40% of 185 is free and that means it will be about
7000 new LIRs in it. That will be enough for 2 years, and after RIPE has
reseved space and reserve pool that could not be used for (as I remember
2 years) and another IPv4 space will be given to market.
So there are enough space for 4-6 years with current situation.

2) RIPE here is not to limit abilities of the members to use IPv4
space. RIPE should give opposites. ISPs will take care about all others.
But in current case RIPE take part in business significant
 parts and that's not good.

3) Those policy add new fields and statuses to the database. And this is
not good too. System should stay simple and useful. It's not good
direction to make it more complex because there are a lot of question to
current one system.

Yuri@NTX

On 18.06.2016 13:58, Stefan Prager wrote:
>> On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy
because the change itself is not part of current policy?
>
>
> I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip
Provider Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of their rights solely
justified by your belief that this is how allocations allocated after
the 14th September 2012 are supposed to be treated. If you are concerned
about people selling off address space allocated after the 14th
September 2012 for profit you can propose to change the holding period
from two years to three or four years or even introduce a transfer fee
like other Regional Internet Registries(RIRs) have in place. Such
changes would be just and apply to all Provider Aggregatable(PA)
allocations and not just to Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations
allocated after the 14th September 2012.
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Riccardo Gori


Hi Gert,


Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto:

hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to
already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want
to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
trade, instead of "use for
This would disvantage every LIR that received or will reiceve an 
ad-normal PA allocation.

Please leave the idea of ab-normal LIRs.

The *reason* why this is proposed is to discourage stockpiling of /22s
(by opening many new LIRs, waiting two years, transfer it all into a
joint LIR and close the others off) - taking away /22s that are supposed
to be used by further new entrants into the market.

A LIR that receives space, runs a network, addresses its customers, and
might even be potentially bought one day is *not* affected (unlike
version 1 of the proposal) - though the proposal might be clearer on the
intended effects of M
Nobody protects new LIRs speculator stockpile /22 in a zero cost 
company/person without network or assignements and black sell it the 
same day it has been allocated

with a private contract registered elsewhere from RIPE database.
This policy is useless. Audit and control is useful, transparency is a 
must we discussed it at last general


Gert Doering
 -- APWG chair

regards
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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Jan Ingvoldstad

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Arash Naderpour 
wrote:

>
> >This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to
> do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
> trade, instead of "use for customers".
>
> That's not true, it can affect any holder of /22 from 185/8

Can you please stop writing that? It is not about 185/8. It's about all
allocations made after a certain point in time.

> not only "young
> LIRs".
> Even if it was limited to "young LIRs" it was not acceptable to me as they
> need to be treated same as "old LIRs", These who become a member earlier
> already have enough advantage over the newer ones, and this policy grant
> them more and I cannot agree with that.
>

I really cannot see how that is true. The policy proposal provides new LIRs
with better protection from "shark" LIRs who don't want to run businesses
with their allocated space.

The proposal is all about protecting new LIRs who actually will do
assignments with their allocated space.

I do agree, though, with the repeated criticism about how M is handled.
-- 
Jan

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Arash Naderpour


>This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to
do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
trade, instead of "use for customers".

That's not true, it can affect any holder of /22 from 185/8 not only "young
LIRs".
Even if it was limited to "young LIRs" it was not acceptable to me as they
need to be treated same as "old LIRs", These who become a member earlier
already have enough advantage over the newer ones, and this policy grant
them more and I cannot agree with that.

Regards,

Arash

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Gert Doering

hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to 
> already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want
to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,
trade, instead of "use for customers".

The *reason* why this is proposed is to discourage stockpiling of /22s
(by opening many new LIRs, waiting two years, transfer it all into a
joint LIR and close the others off) - taking away /22s that are supposed
to be used by further new entrants into the market.

A LIR that receives space, runs a network, addresses its customers, and
might even be potentially bought one day is *not* affected (unlike 
version 1 of the proposal) - though the proposal might be clearer on the
intended effects of M

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Denis Fondras

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:32:50PM +0200, Stefan Prager wrote:
> People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6
> resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future
> either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure their
> survival and let me assure you they will do just that, just as any business
> should.
> 

Is this RIPE role to make your business sustainable ?
I mean, if I had a transportation business I know I will have to buy gas on the
market to have my business run. Even if the truck came with a filled tank when I
bought/leased it. Whatever the market price is.  Even if my competitors reserved
litre of gas in when the price was low.

Being a business manager myself, the first thing I learned is that
market/competition/rules might change anytime and I have to adapt for survival.
As of today, IPv4 from RIPE NCC is reserved for newer entrants, just like your
startup might benefit from tax exemption, access to business incubator or any
other advantage in its early-stage and only in the early-stage.
Plenty of IPv4 is available on market. Go there with your wallet if you need
more.

Denis

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Stefan Prager

> On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote:
> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the 
> change itself is not part of current policy?

I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip Provider 
Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of their rights solely justified by your 
belief that this is how allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012 are 
supposed to be treated. If you are concerned about people selling off address 
space allocated after the 14th September 2012 for profit you can propose to 
change the holding period from two years to three or four years or even 
introduce a transfer fee like other Regional Internet Registries(RIRs) have in 
place. Such changes would be just and apply to all Provider Aggregatable(PA) 
allocations and not just to Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations allocated 
after the 14th September 2012.

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:11, Sander Steffann wrote:

> I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get
> from RIPE NCC. How is preventing to sell off your addresses in any way
> considered "healing yourself"?

It doesn't only limit "selling", it limits "transfer by policy". The M
has become stricter (pending written confirmation) and pushes some
legitimate cases in policy territory.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Mozafary Mohammad


I'm agree with Arash.


On 6/18/2016 9:37 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote:

Hi,

This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller
blocks  (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to
obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to transfer
it out later if they don't need it.

I'm opposing the policy, it make unnecessary limitation and put a part of
community in an unfair situation. If returning an allocation is something
visible it can be done to any allocation, not just the smallest ones.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Arash Naderpour

Hi,

This policy can affect the members that already received some /22 or smaller
blocks  (from 185/8 range) from the market. They already paid to sellers to
obtain those blocks and this policy make it impossible for them to transfer
it out later if they don't need it.

I'm opposing the policy, it make unnecessary limitation and put a part of
community in an unfair situation. If returning an allocation is something
visible it can be done to any allocation, not just the smallest ones.

Regards,

Arash Naderpour

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-18 Thread Riccardo Gori

Hi Sander,

here I am, thank you for your reply

Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already
disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

You keep bringing that up, but how is preventing those newer LIRs from selling
their addresses in any way disadvantaging them? On one hand you keep saying new
LIRs don't get enough address space, and on the other hand you're saying that
it is bad that they can't sell their space. Which one is it?
I am basically saying that the rule of the game are already there and
working quite well.
And since I am an afterlife (14/09/2015) LIR this would put us in an
even worste condition to make work our small business.

This proposal doesn't prevent new LIRs from buying address space. And if they
want to buy /22s from other newer LIRs they can as easily (and cheaper) open
their own second LIR. The RIPE NCC membership explicitly allowed that during
the last AGM.

Two scenarios:

One
- Someone opens up an LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They sell it off to another LIR for a profit

Two
- That other LIR opens up a second LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M

This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The
previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this
version removed that restriction.

So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening
up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs
from *selling* their /22 for profit.

I'm sorry, but if that is your business model then you are exactly the kind of
business that this proposal is trying to stop. The IPv4 allocation policy has
very few requirements, and one of them is that the LIR has to use it for assign
addresses from. If the intention is to sell those addresses then you are
already in violation of the current policy. That is *NOT* why you were given
that /22 in the first place.

And as far as judging consensus goes, arguments that boil down to "I am currently
violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons, and this proposal is
stopping me from doing that" will not be taken into account. There are plenty of
other arguments that need to be discussed, like the potential impact on the accuracy of
the registry that Nick brought up. But there is too much FUD and noise in this discussion.
Sorry Sander, but I think you are kidding at this point. Already
explained my business model and has no primary scope in IP selling, if
it was so I would qualify myself as an IP Broker. I am not.

Please don't treat me like a baby. Problems are slightly different:
You know is very easy to keep opened a zero cost company in many
countries that can hold the LIR and everyone with a piece of brain can
easily make private contract to title the assignements to ends customers
or other LIRs for black money.
This is called black market and is really easy to implement with 2016-03
around.
I argued about the fairness of the treatement of new LIRs but also
pointed out practical problems like databases consistence and black market.
With 2016-03 once stockpiled the IPs will stuck there and the easiest
method to speculate on those IPs is black market.

Do you think speculators didn't tought about it?
Is exacly the same thing will happen all over the world if you say no
more transfert will be approved.
Can even higher dramattically market price and speculators will be
really really happy.

I will not be surprised if will make appear black market brokers as well.

Please you want someone else goes this way not me.
Please look ar RIPE IPv6 course attended list, RIPE meetings... and my
IP transit contracts, presence of my AS number in NAMEX, MIX and AMS-IS
and my space annouced and in use

I am still convinced the only way to stop abusing is to use the current
policy and check out the assignements and enforce audit procedure.

I don't mind if you send opposing arguments, but as I have said before I do care about
the quality of the discussion. If you respond this policy in its current form then I'd
like to see good argumentation with concrete examples of issues, not some hand-waving
like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that
exactly would work. Then we have something to discuss that people can respond to.
Consensus building works by explaining the issues and people trying to address them.
Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out for me :)
I am strongly against 2016-03 because will give us a flowering black
market zero transparency and no database consistence.

enough quality?

Cheers,
Sander

cheers and regards
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.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Riccardo,

>>> A new entrant would see his investments vanified
>>> 
>> Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed 
>> in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep 
>> the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back 
>> in use.
> 
> About investments:
> To set up my ISP I needed networking, infrastructure, IP transit, hosting 
> services, IP addresses.
> I payed a signup fee and that was an investement to be an LIR and do better 
> business as an ISP. I pay annualy a membership fees and this is part of the 
> costs to run the business.
> if I look to my management server (a couple of server hotsed outside my 
> network) I see that I pay 16 € per month for a /29 as part of the contract 
> with my hosting provider... so actually yes IP space is a small part of the 
> investements or costs in any case.

You're taking this out of context. We're talking about 2016-03 here. Everything 
you mention is about the cost of running an ISP. This proposal doesn't change a 
thing for that: you still get your /22. The only thing that changes is that you 
can't sell it.

> About transferts:
> The same is today. Main reasons for a transfert are not renumbering and 
> database consistence or unused IPs? Unused Ips is not my case I have so few.
> This proposal puts the new LIRs in a worse condition even it already is. We 
> are not SICK, we are late entrants. I don't see any reason to create CLASS-E 
> "unusable LIRs"  to keep them far from the IP market old LIRs created.

What are you talking about? The only thing this proposal prevents is from 
selling a single /22. Jumping from there to "unusable LIRs" makes no sense.

> Are you really thinking that I came out with a proposal like 2015-05 to catch 
> more IPs to sell them?

We're not talking about 2015-05 here...

> I am not selling IPs 'cause i need them for assignements to customers

In that case this policy proposal doesn't change anything for you.

> but the first thing my they ask me when I propose consulting for IPv6 
> trasnition is "can I have the assigned space for me one day to keep on 
> running the network"

And the answer to that has always been "no". Please read section 7 of 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649. It contains this text:

"""
Clear contractual arrangements are mandatory for PA space. End Users requesting 
PA space must be given this or a similar warning:

Assignment of this IP space is valid as long as the criteria for the original 
assignment are met and only for the duration of the service agreement between 
yourself and us. We have the right to reassign the address space to another 
user upon termination of this agreement or an agreed period thereafter. This 
means that you will have to re-configure the addresses of all equipment using 
this IP space if you continue to require global uniqueness of those addresses.
"""

>> We still have M for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. 
>> That is not affected by this policy proposal.
> The evidence of a disvantage of newcomers is still there.

How? All that this proposal limits is them selling their /22, which you keep 
telling me is not your intention.

> Black market will substitute normal transfers regulations

Please read my reply to Nick Hilliard two days ago, we were discussing the same 
issue and I am not yet sure that this is true.

> and creative implementations of M will come to overcome the policy,

M are explicitly allowed, based on feedback from the working group.

> transparency will go far from database and statistics and transfert evidence.
> You want all of this?

I wouldn't want that, but I cannot see how you reach that conclusion...

>>> We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert 
>>> country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their 
>>> allocation making them able to keep their business running!
>>> 
>> An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the 
>> allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. 
>> And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those 
>> "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.
> 
> Again, selling PA is out there and there are many here on the list proud of 
> it.
> We were in Bucarest celebrating this good manner of JUMP Management making 
> space available to their end users signin up as new members.
> 
> Second: avoid my customers to sign up and waste a /22 while needing only a 
> /24 was exacly the purpose of 2015-05
> I tried to explain everyone (with Radu who shared the same point about this) 
> that many customers are signin up wasting space just for the needing of a /24.

Then assign /24s, or even smaller, to your customers from your PA allocation. 
That is what it is for!

> This customer is mine not yours. And what you want me to have no address 
> space to serve him so we can let him create his own

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Radu,

Thank you for providing concrete cases! This is now something that can be 
discussed.

> Three:
> - That other LIR opens up a second LIR
> - They get their /22 (free)
> - They can no longer apply "M" because the definition of "M"
> changed, and they have to do a regular transfer.
> 
> On a general basis, there may be reasons for which you have to proceed
> with a regular transfer, other than "get IPs from NCC in order to sell
> them".
> 
> It is my understanding, and please someone from RIPE NCC confirm or
> infirm that in public, that M has "slightly" changed recently, and the
> following operations are no longer M:
> - merging several existing LIRs having the same owner.
> - re-organisation of address space between the LIRs of a group.
> - purchasing a company but keeping the purchased company's legal entity
> (you accountant will give you good reasons for this; if you live in
> counties like France, your HR will give a few more reasons).
> - putting together resources of several entities within a group without
> proceeding with heavy legal and administrative paperwork.

So basically what you are worried about is that RIPE NCC will not treat all M 
as M and might apply the transfer policy instead, and that with this proposal 
stopping transfers of the /22 the M would be blocked, causing such members to 
be forced to keep multiple LIRs open.

Let's ask our friendly PDO to ask his colleagues within RIPE NCC how the cases 
you mention would be treated.

>> currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons
> 
> Policy-wise, there are no "wrong reasons".

Yes there are. The policy explicitly states "The LIR must confirm it will make 
assignment(s) from the allocation". If you request an allocation without the 
intention of making assignments from it you have lied during your allocation 
request. That is a policy violation.

But anyway: let's wait for the RIPE NCC to get back to this list with more data 
on M!

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)


Hi Sander,

thank you for your reply

Il 17/06/2016 00:59, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,

I'm sorry, but there is some FUD here that I need to address. Again: I don't 
care whether this policy gets consensus or not, but I do care about the quality 
of the arguments. That is what Gert and/or I have to base consensus on later.

A new entrant would see his investments vanified

Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in 
the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the 
database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.


About investements:
To set up my ISP I needed networking, infrastructure, IP transit, 
hosting services, IP addresses.
I payed a signup fee and that was an investement to be an LIR and do 
better business as an ISP. I pay annualy a membership fees and this is 
part of the costs to run the business.
if I look to my management server (a couple of server hotsed outside my 
network) I see that I pay 16 € per month for a /29 as part of the 
contract with my hosting provider... so actually yes IP space is a small 
part of the investements or costs in any case.


About transferts:
The same is today. Main reasons for a transfert are not renumbering and 
database consistence or unused IPs? Unused Ips is not my case I have so few.
This proposal puts the new LIRs in a worse condition even it already is. 
We are not SICK, we are late entrants. I don't see any reason to create 
CLASS-E "unusable LIRs"  to keep them far from the IP market old LIRs 
created.
Policies are making possibile every kind of transfert, inter RIR, PA, PI 
and so on and what? all of this for LIRs holding stockpiled space?
The rules are there. If we change the rule change it for everyone and 
you'll find me really in favor of that.



by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that 
acquired space before 09/2012
With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it.

No, new LIRs get exactly the same "free" /22 as before. Only now they can not 
transfer/sell it, they can use it to run their network with. That is not pushing new LIRs 
out of the market. Unless your business is to sell off address space. In that case: that 
is what this proposal is trying to prevent, so the remaining address space is saved for 
organisations that run
Are you really thinking that I came out with a proposal like 2015-05 to 
catch more IPs to sell them?
I am not selling IPs 'cause i need them for assignements to customers 
but the first thing my they ask me when I propose consulting for IPv6 
trasnition is "can I have the assigned space for me one day to keep on 
running the network"
And what I aswer normally is "I surely can make you and IPv6 
ALLOCATED-BY-LIR; for IPv4 let's see what happens maybe in the future 
you won't need, let's see"



I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I am pretty 
sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP Transfert policies were 
accepted even 'cause in case of network acquisition or M or many other cases 
renumbering customers is very difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources 
is the most easy way to keep consistence on database.

We still have M for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. 
That is not affected by this policy proposal.

The evidence of a disvantage of newcomers is still there.
Black market will substitute normal transfert regulations and creative 
implementations of M will come to overcome the policy, transparency 
will go far from database and statistics and transfert evidence.

You want all of this?


We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country 
were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making 
them able to keep their business running!

An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model 
works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell 
allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they 
can get their own /22.


Again, selling PA is out there and there are many here on the list proud 
of it.
We were in Bucarest celebrating this good manner of JUMP Management 
making space available to their end users signin up as new members.


Second: avoid my customers to sign up and waste a /22 while needing only 
a /24 was exacly the purpose of 2015-05
I tried to explain everyone (with Radu who shared the same point about 
this) that many customers are signin up wasting space just for the 
needing of a /24.
This customer is mine not yours. And what you want me to have no address 
space to serve him so we can let him create his own LIR? He is in a 
completely different kind of business nothing to deal with internet but 
the use
In your opinion I have to force him to be like me, so the day after he 
can kid me like someone did on the list

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Sorry Sander,

thank you for your reply. I didn't reply to your first email 'cause i
was busy. That's why my comment could not be understood at this time.

I'll reply to your first email in reply to mine and I'll get here later..

regards

Riccardo

Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already
disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

Two scenarios:

One
- Someone opens up an LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They sell it off to another LIR for a profit

Two
- That other LIR opens up a second LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M

This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The
previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this
version removed that restriction.

So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening
up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs
from *selling* their /22 for profit.

Cheers,
Sander

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:48, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Two scenarios:
> 
> One
> - Someone opens up an LIR
> - They get their /22 (free)
> - They sell it off to another LIR for a profit
> 
> Two
> - That other LIR opens up a second LIR
> - They get their /22 (free)
> - They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M

Three:
 - That other LIR opens up a second LIR
 - They get their /22 (free)
 - They can no longer apply "M" because the definition of "M"
 changed, and they have to do a regular transfer.

On a general basis, there may be reasons for which you have to proceed
with a regular transfer, other than "get IPs from NCC in order to sell
them".

It is my understanding, and please someone from RIPE NCC confirm or
infirm that in public, that M has "slightly" changed recently, and the
following operations are no longer M:
 - merging several existing LIRs having the same owner.
 - re-organisation of address space between the LIRs of a group.
 - purchasing a company but keeping the purchased company's legal entity
 (you accountant will give you good reasons for this; if you live in
 counties like France, your HR will give a few more reasons).
 - putting together resources of several entities within a group without
 proceeding with heavy legal and administrative paperwork.

> So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not
> opening up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only
> limits those LIRs from *selling* their /22 for profit.

For allocations prior to the unlikely application of the policy, it only
gives one shot for some business processes. For those made after that
hypothetic date, zero.
Unless someone from RIPE NCC (registration services or board preferred)
can infirm my understanding of recent M changes.

> currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons

Policy-wise, there are no "wrong reasons". If we decide to create them
however, there are two possibilities :
 - all allocations done *AFTER* the application of "wrong reasons
 policy" would be concerned. Not those done before.
 - in addition to the above, if we want to apply this to transferred
 space, *ALL* space transferred (regardless of the initial allocation
 date) should be concerned. 

> examples of issues, not some hand-waving like "this is disadvantaging new
> LIRs" without any explanation of how that exactly would work. Then we

See my comment above, under reserve of validation from NCC staff:
 - "old LIR" got a /20 on Aug 2012. They never needed to pay more than
 one membership fee
 - "new company #1" /22 on July 2015, another one on Dec 2015 (on a
 sister company) and anther one on June 2016 (another sister company,
 since "additional" LIRs is still not officially reinstated). Due to the
 new M rules, the ressources have to be transferred (regular transfer)
 in order for the LIRs to be consolidated. If 2016-03 goes "live" before
 July 2017, "new company #1" is stuck with 3 memberships forever for
 less space the "old LIR".
 - "new company #2" did similar things to "new company #1", just at
 different dates (2014/10 and 2015/09) and on the same legal entity. Not
 having had enough time to sort out the merger due to "have to run a
 business" they can no longer do the merge today and have to wait until
 2016/10, provided that 2015-03 does not go live by then. If for the
 same reasons the merger is left over until after 2016-03 goes live,
 they will also have to stay with 2 memberships forever.
 - "new company #3" which just got their /22 will face the risk of
 having to pay one membership per /22 forever.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN  [2016-06-18 00:06]:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?
> 
> Because it is in the past.

Yesterday is in the past but it doesn't bother me because today is
weekend. *Why* does it bother you?

> > That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and 
> > why?
> 
> Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same.

Which would make us run out in a few days. We've discussed this
multiple times.

> > We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land.
> 
> Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it
> myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order
> to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities.
> And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the
> price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes
> the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ?

I have no idea what you mean. Seriously. What price?

> With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the
> community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as
> possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is
> meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a
> distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN*
> alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before
> IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.00, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even
> 0.001).

No, not "make v4 last as long as possible" but "make it possible for
new entrants to get a small piece of v4 as long as possible". That is
a difference. This pool has no impact on the transfer market. Perhaps
you can find your "gold" there.

> Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a
> content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of
> provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as
> today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027
> (regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today
> I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants"  with no incentive
> (or even obligation) to deploy v6.

I don't exactly understand what you mean. You can't force people to
deploy IPv6. A content start-up in 2022 will need to deploy IPv6 to
reach the people on the Internet that only have IPv6.

> As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit
> need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4
> explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4
> address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough
> business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be
> interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer
> that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the
> service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only
> (they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have
> customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely
> because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only
> acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't
> meant that it will be used.

As I said, you can't force people to adopt IPv6. They will see that
they cannot reach their customers very well with IPv4 only in the
future. We have many customers that have deployed IPv6 right now
exactly because of this. Services that depend on end-to-end
reachability (for example some VPN services) don't work very well with
DS-Lite and CGNs.

As many people have stated, if your new business depends on large
quantities of IPv4 space it will fail. That is nothing we can change.
Almost all our customers need IPv4 but most of them only need a very
small space for addressing their services. If you need more IPv4 you
will need to to NAT (CGN) or other workarounds.

> So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that:
>  - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most
>  important no-go for 2016-03)

The date is the activation of the last /8 pool. It has nothing to do
with the "age" of the aggregation only the addresses in the pool.

>  - does it retroactively

As was stated it will not change any transfers retroactively. It will
only apply to future transfers as it always has been with transfer
policy.

>  - tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market

How does it unbalance the market? It is quite a small pool.

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?

Because it is in the past.

> That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and 
> why?

Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same.

> We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land.

Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it
myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order
to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities.
And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the
price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes
the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ?

With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the
community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as
possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is
meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a
distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN*
alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before
IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.00, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even
0.001).

Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a
content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of
provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as
today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027
(regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today
I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants"  with no incentive
(or even obligation) to deploy v6.

As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit
need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4
explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4
address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough
business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be
interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer
that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the
service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only
(they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have
customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely
because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only
acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't
meant that it will be used.

So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that:
 - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most
 important no-go for 2016-03)
 - does it retroactively
 - tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Stefan,

> Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, 
> I would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down 
> to just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve 
> months they will need to pay an additional instalment of 500,00 Euros which 
> will bring the total amount still to 2000,00 Euros if they requested 4x /24 
> allocations over a period of 4 years. After each allocation the RIPE NCC will 
> aggregate the allocation whenever possible. Subsequently if a new member 
> requests a second /24 the allocation will be enlarged to a /23. In the end he 
> will be left with one /22 if there is sufficient consecutive address space 
> left to do so.
> 
> In cases where the Local Internet Registry does not require any IPv4 address 
> space it should also not be required to pay any fees apart from the 
> membership fees.

Membership fees are out-of-scope for the RIPE Address Policy Working Group. The 
RIPE community makes the policy, the RIPE NCC and its members determine the 
membership fees. This working group is part of the RIPE community and not 
involved in setting membership fees.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hello Stefan,

> Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward 
> any longer than it already has

Excuse me, but that is not your call to make.

Sander
APWG co-chair



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Remco van Mook

Hi Radu,

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 22:18 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 21:09, Remco van Mook wrote:
>> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because
>> the change itself is not part of current policy?
> 
> No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit
> reference to allocation made after a certain date in the past:
> 
> All allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs after 14 September 2012
> will be marked in the RIPE Database as “ALLOCATED FINAL”.
> 
> 
> Just remove "after 14 September 2012" and you ban all transfers. Not
> necessarily a bad idea.
> 

1. I make specific reference to the date that 'final /8' came into effect in 
the same way it's used in current policy. It's not just some random day. If 
there was any other way to reference 'every allocation made under this policy' 
that wasn't hopelessly broken or confusing I would have done so.

2. You're making assumptions about my expectations. Please don't.

3. 2007-08 also impacted previously allocated IPv4 space in a massive way. The 
concept introduced in that policy is what's called 'transfers' these days. I 
remember because I wrote it.

4. I don't see how this piece of your response in any way relates to my 
question to Stefan.

>> Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only
>> have received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by
>> the community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to
>> that purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013.
> 
> Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you
> by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks.
> Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Who is "we", who is "you" 
and what does "heal yourself" mean in this context?

Remco

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

> Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you
> by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks.
> Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.

I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get from 
RIPE NCC. How is preventing to sell off your addresses in any way considered 
"healing yourself"?

Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)


Hi,

Il 17/06/2016 19:32, Stefan Prager ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

I suggest to just look at the facts here.

Local Internet Registries(LIRs) before the 15th September 2012 have received 
Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC. Local Internet 
Registries after the 14th September 2012 have also received Provider 
Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC.

There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after 
14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out before 
the 15th September 2012. There is also no mention in the respective policies, 
as was mentioned during one of the talks at RIPE-72 in Denmark, that 
allocations received after the 14th September 2012 are to be used for the sole 
purpose of providing legacy connections to IPv4 networks.



Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward 
any longer than it already has as it would seek to single out already heavily 
disadvantaged members even more for the sole reason that they happen to be 
holding an allocation received after the 14th September 2012.

Fellow policy shaping participants, I believe we have several options here:

a) Modify this proposal to forbid all types of transfers including mergers and 
acquisitions. This will provide a level playing field for all RIPE NCC members 
and not single out members solely on the fact that they have received an 
allocation after the 14th September 2012.

b) Modify this proposal to change the allocation status only for new 
allocations allocated after this proposal has been accepted and implemented.

c) Declare that no consensus has been reached.
I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to 
already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)



Additionally I would like to mention that some people seem to think that this 
proposal will stifle the Local Internet Registry application rate. Let me 
assure you, it will not. Those of you that believe that this would be the 
result of the acceptance of this proposal don't fully grasp the reality of the 
situation we are in.

People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6 
resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future 
either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure their 
survival and let me assure you they will do just that, just as any business 
should.

Now where do we go from here? I am in favour of making sensible policies that 
will provide IPv4 address space for the foreseeable future for new members 
however this proposal is certainly not a way to achieve that as it does not 
solve the problem at hand.

I have been giving this quite some thought which is the reason why I will be 
putting forward the following proposal within the next week:

=> Lower the initial allocation a new RIPE NCC member receives down to a /24.

=> A new member may request an additional /24 every twelve months until he has 
reached a /22.

For aggregation purposes the RIPE NCC will reserve a consecutive /22 for as 
long as it is possible so new members may reach a consecutive /22 after they 
have requested four /24 subnets over a time span of four years.
I think this could not be easy standing on current allocation rate but 
we should ask registration services if techincally possible.


Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, I 
would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down to 
just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve months 
they will need to pay an additional instalment of 500,00 Euros which will bring 
the total amount still to 2000,00 Euros if they requested 4x /24 allocations 
over a period of 4 years. After each allocation the RIPE NCC will aggregate the 
allocation whenever possible. Subsequently if a new member requests a second 
/24 the allocation will be enlarged to a /23. In the end he will be left with 
one /22 if there is sufficient consecutive address space left to do so.

In cases where the Local Internet Registry does not require any IPv4 address 
space it should also not be required to pay any fees apart from the membership 
fees.

This proposal is interesting and fair.
You have to consider RIPE NCC techincally does not sell space. Your 
proposal pratically is to change the allocation model in a pay per use 
and this to me looks really interesting.
I would apply this model to the whole IPv4 space. All the already 
allocated and future allocations.
In Remcko view (as in 2016-03 for ALLOCATED-FINAL) starting tomorrow in 
a pay per use model for everyone is not retroactive 'cause is just a 
policy change for future year fee memberships.

Stockpiles ip will vanish, so much returned space voluntary
IPv4 will last very longer and Remcko will be appy and I'll be happy too.
I'll pay every year my membership exacly for what I am assigning to my

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN  [2016-06-17 22:21]:
> No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit
> reference to allocation made after a certain date in the past:
> 
> All allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs after 14 September 2012
> will be marked in the RIPE Database as “ALLOCATED FINAL”.
> 

This is the date when the last /8 policy kicked in. It could also say
"all blocks allocated by the last /8 policy" or some wording like
that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?

> Just remove "after 14 September 2012" and you ban all transfers. Not
> necessarily a bad idea.

That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that
and why?

> > Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only
> > have received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by
> > the community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to
> > that purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013.
> 
> Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you
> by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks.
> Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.

We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4
land.

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 21:09, Remco van Mook wrote:
> Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because
> the change itself is not part of current policy?

No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit
reference to allocation made after a certain date in the past:

All allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs after 14 September 2012
will be marked in the RIPE Database as “ALLOCATED FINAL”.

Just remove "after 14 September 2012" and you ban all transfers. Not
necessarily a bad idea.

> Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only
> have received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by
> the community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to
> that purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013.

Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you
by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks.
Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Remco van Mook

Hi Stefan,

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 19:32 , Stefan Prager  wrote:
> 
> There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after 
> 14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out 
> before the 15th September 2012. There is also no mention in the respective 
> policies, as was mentioned during one of the talks at RIPE-72 in Denmark, 
> that allocations received after the 14th September 2012 are to be used for 
> the sole purpose of providing legacy connections to IPv4 networks.
> 
> Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward 
> any longer than it already has as it would seek to single out already heavily 
> disadvantaged members even more for the sole reason that they happen to be 
> holding an allocation received after the 14th September 2012.

Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the 
change itself is not part of current policy?

Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only have 
received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by the 
community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to that 
purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013.

Remco
heavily disadvantaged member

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Gert Doering

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:09:11AM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:
> > Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied
> > retroactively" no less than this one.
> I don't think 2015-01 apply retroactively.
> I think allocation made before implementation of 2015-01 are free from 
> limitations.

Both do not apply retroactively, as in "transfers that happened before
the proposal came into effect are nullified".

Both proposal *do* apply to all *future* transfers - regardless of the
allocation date of the to-be-transferred address space.  

This is the way our policy changes have always worked: affecting future
*actions* to be done with numbers.  Only one single proposal ever affected
pre-existing assignments in a big way, 2007-01 - and that was seen as 
necessary (and in hindsight, given the amount of attempted fraud regarding 
address blocks, it was a very good decision).

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

So let's not spend on this proposal and spend on deploying IPv6 which is the 
better way.

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Jim Reid
Sent: June 17, 2016 4:36 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 
July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net> wrote:
> 
> Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more 
> people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. 

Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort that’s 
being wasted here haggling over the dregs of v4 would be better spent deploying 
IPv6.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Remco van Mook  [2016-06-16 16:18]:
> 
> Thank you Marco.
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version
> (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it
> is quite different from the first version.
> 
> Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all
> "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to
> the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and
> parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up
> feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

Hello,

I support the proposal. The /22 policy was made so that new LIRs can
implement transition methods from IPv4 to IPv6. If the LIR merges or
is acquired they can keep the space. If they stop business they don't
need the transition methods any more because *they're no longer in
business*.

I'm aware that this is not an ideal solution but I think it will make
it more difficult to game the system for profit. I'm saying this fully
aware that I and others would have a lot less headaches if we would
just remove the limits of the last /8 policy and let everything go
down in flames.

Our LIR has enough address space left but right now I still have it in
me to try making sure that new LIRs get some address space that is
useful for them to provide services. NOT for some shadow LIRs that
just want to make profit from the space. If you're doing this you get
no sympathy from me.

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Payam Poursaied  [2016-06-17 13:00]:
> My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4
> for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those
> who really require IP, can get IP.

THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!

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] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Jim Reid

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied  wrote:
> 
> Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more 
> people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. 

Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort that’s 
being wasted here haggling over the dregs of v4 would be better spent deploying 
IPv6.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Jim
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
I'm not as knowledgeable as Sander to comment on possibility of the 
implementing and enforcing such policy, but not being able to do so, does not 
mean not to react to the policy which might not lead to its original intention. 

Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more 
people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. 

Best Regards
-Payam

-Original Message-
From: Jim Reid [mailto:j...@rfc1035.com] 
Sent: June 17, 2016 3:36 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 
July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 11:55, Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net> wrote:
> 
> why not to create and enforce
> policies which return the
> not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond
> itions-change o the free pool? 

Feel free to write up and submit a policy proposal along these lines since it 
seems to be something that matters to you.

IMO such a policy would be impractical, expensive to implement, easy to subvert 
and unlikely to result in much IPv4 space getting returned for reallocation. 
But maybe you know something I don’t.

Even if space was returned from this hypothetical policy, it still doesn’t 
resolve anything. We still run out of IPv4 because there’s not enough of it. At 
best, all your policy might achieve is delay complete v4 exhaustion at the NCC 
by a couple of weeks. Then what?

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Sander
Thank you for your reply

> We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need
more than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have
enough addresses to give everybody what they want.

So, let's keep the transfers and not restrict part of that. Also 24-month
lock after transfer is still there. 
And once more, you know the eco system better. Please consider the whole
system. In the supply-demand market is there. This proposal would create a
second grade IP blocks and bring more trade games in



-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: June 17, 2016 3:50 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15
July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

> My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of 
> IPv4 for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which 
> help those who really require IP, can get IP.

I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous
allocation policy and would hand out addresses from the pool based on bed
then that pool would be empty in a month or two, and then we would be in a
worse situation than we are now because then even handing out a /22 to a new
LIR would be impossible.

We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need more
than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have
enough addresses to give everybody what they want.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

> My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4
> for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those
> who really require IP, can get IP.

I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous 
allocation policy and would hand out addresses from the pool based on bed then 
that pool would be empty in a month or two, and then we would be in a worse 
situation than we are now because then even handing out a /22 to a new LIR 
would be impossible.

We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need more 
than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have enough 
addresses to give everybody what they want.

Cheers,
Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

2016-06-17 Thread Jim Reid

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 11:55, Payam Poursaied  wrote:
> 
> why not to create and enforce
> policies which return the
> not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond
> itions-change o the free pool? 

Feel free to write up and submit a policy proposal along these lines since it 
seems to be something that matters to you.

IMO such a policy would be impractical, expensive to implement, easy to subvert 
and unlikely to result in much IPv4 space getting returned for reallocation. 
But maybe you know something I don’t.

Even if space was returned from this hypothetical policy, it still doesn’t 
resolve anything. We still run out of IPv4 because there’s not enough of it. At 
best, all your policy might achieve is delay complete v4 exhaustion at the NCC 
by a couple of weeks. Then what?

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Sander
It was not about allegation! It was about efficiency of policies and
procedures in place during those days.
Those practices led to today's situation. 
Statistics are clear. See who is selling, who is buying and which LIR still
has un-assigned/un-advertised/no-traffic IP blocks. 

>People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let
someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space

The way I interpret the proposal is: it only address part of the problem!
And by partially handling the problem, you would not be able to help the
internet community. I would suggest to look at the problem from a wider
angel. The issue is lack of IPv4 for those who need IPv4! I emphasize: it is
not "lack of IPv4" only! It is "lack of IPv4 for those who need". As I
believe there are still enough IPv4 but they is not well and fair
distributed! While there are IPv4 for sale and trades get happened, it means
still there are enough IP :)

You are more knowledgeable than me in IPv4 space utilization. You must have
seen heat-maps of IPv4 usage. Your point on use cases which do not need
having the allocated blocks advertised makes sense, but the portion of such
uses cases might not be considerable. And I would love to hear from IP
analysts that how often they have the approved allocations based on such use
cases (i.e. size-wise)


> People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let
someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space.

> That is what the /22s are for: to allow newcomers (from anywhere within
the region, we don't discriminate on location) access to some free IPv4
addresses.


Sander, Please let me know who are the buyers in the current market? The new
LIR? Or the existing ISPs who do not have enough IP to server their
customers. My point was the demand is there in the market. By this proposal,
nothing happens to solve the main issue but it moves the money direction to
those who hold IP space from long time ago. If an ISP need IP, it wold
purchase! No question! Unless the pricing make the business plan out of
balance. 
So this proposal would not help the eco system. It only causes price
increase and those who can benefit from selling IP blocks.
Please look to this problem as a "system dynamic" problem. Buy putting some
restriction in a part of eco system, without tackling the real problem,
nothing would get better. 

> It happens. Business plans change, market conditions change. Some people
may even have lied about their needs in such a way that it is impossible to
prove. Remember: allocations were made based on expected growth.
Expectations often don't come true exactly the way people planned things.
ISP planning often happens for 3-to-6-month periods. The 24 month estimates
for allocation requests have always been difficult to judge.

In response to this par of you email:
1- That is the most easiest way of justifying. why not to create and enforce
policies which return the
not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond
itions-change o the free pool? 
2- for sure nobody can judge before something happens. But when it happens,
it could be judged. So after 24-month period you can judge, and there are
lots of over-2-year allocations which could be studies :)
3-my understanding is the whole proposed policy is based on pre-judgment. It
wanted to prevent the speculation of IPv4 which is fine, but how do you know
that those who received blocks after September 14th 2012 are speculators?
Their business plans could get changed. Their market could get changed as
well. Quite similar to what you said. 
4- Also as Arash mentioned, why do you want to only make the recent
allocations unattractive for speculation, please make the whole allocations
unattractive for such purpose:)

My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4
for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those
who really require IP, can get IP.


Best Regards
-Payam


-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: June 17, 2016 2:29 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <pa...@rasana.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15
July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :)  Here
is the rest:

Hi Payam,

> My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the 
> newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days
[probably without proper justification] I remember the days which our LIR
was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request
although we had proved that our need was even more than what we submitted in
our application, and eventually the block which he approved was less th

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :)  Here is 
the rest:

Hi Payam,

> My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers 
> rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably 
> without proper justification]
> I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst 
> and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even 
> more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block 
> which he approved was less than what we requested.
> And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we 
had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else.

> These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling!
> 
> That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very 
> rational, but it is not going to solve the issue!
> The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone 
else set up an LIR and just sell the space.

> If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed 
> another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to 
> use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve 
> new customers due to lack of IP space.

That is what the /22s are for: to allow newcomers (from anywhere within the 
region, we don't discriminate on location) access to some free IPv4 addresses.

> we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who 
> got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years 
> following the allocation

It happens. Business plans change, market conditions change. Some people may 
even have lied about their needs in such a way that it is impossible to prove. 
Remember: allocations were made based on expected growth. Expectations often 
don't come true exactly the way people planned things. ISP planning often 
happens for 3-to-6-month periods. The 24 month estimates for allocation 
requests have always been difficult to judge.

> , and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even un-advertised!) ones!

Advertising space in the global routing table has never been a requirement. 
There are use cases where unique addresses are required but don't need to be 
advertised. Think for example about private interconnection networks between 
companies. The companies will already be using all the RFC1918 space 
internally, so to avoid addressing conflicts the interconnect network needs 
unique addresses. Same as IXP space, which is often also not routed.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Payam,

> My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers 
> rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably 
> without proper justification]
> I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst 
> and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even 
> more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block 
> which he approved was less than what we requested. 
> And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we 
had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else.

> These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling! 
> 
> That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very 
> rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! 
> The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone 
else set up an LIR and just sell the space

> If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed 
> another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to 
> use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve 
> new customers due to lack of IP space.
> 
> we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who 
> got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years 
> following the allocation, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even 
> un-advertised!) ones!
> 
> 
> 
> On 2016-06-17 02:58:20 CET, Arash Naderpour wrote:
>>> I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including
>> the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or
>> heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for
>> *NO* allocations.
>> 
>> Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the
>> new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an
>> allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to
>> the smallest ones, it is not fair.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Arash
> 
> 
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

+1
My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather 
than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper 
justification]
I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst 
and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even more 
than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block which he 
approved was less than what we requested. 
And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling! 

That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very 
rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! 
The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!
If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed another 
policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to use that) 
in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve new 
customers due to lack of IP space.

we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who got 
plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years 
following the allocation, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even 
un-advertised!) ones!

On 2016-06-17 02:58:20 CET, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> >I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including
> the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or
> heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for
> *NO* allocations.
> 
> Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the
> new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an
> allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to
> the smallest ones, it is not fair.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Arash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)