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

[noc]

thank you for fast feedback

>>>the RIPE NCC and Geoff Huston, and both independently have shown that the pool has an expected remaining lifetime of 4 to 4.5 years

last 5mln will be enough for 2 3 years.
and rest 14mln for much more from now. aprox 10 years or more.

i dont agree with numbers. lets meet here and check the numbers.

also you need into the future. all rirs discuss about transfers between. and in future i guese in this 2-4 years it will be much easer do redistribute space for consumers between RIRs.

so we need to see if such new rules will be useful in future.  it's obviously that its not.

Yuri@NTX NOC



Sent from my Mi phoneOn Sander Steffann , Oct 26, 2016 1:06 PM wrote:Hi Yuri,

A bit of quick feedback:

> 1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under
> current polices for LIRs, there are a lot of space in it. And those
> space will be used for new LIRs. You can see that it will be enough for
> 10-15 years or more.

That number is too optimistic. During the APWG session at RIPE73 we just got analysis from both the RIPE NCC and Geoff Huston, and both independently have shown that the pool has an expected remaining lifetime of 4 to 4.5 years.

> 2) Policy name should be not like /8 but on all free/reserve space
> because it should relay on all rest. So name "/8" is not correct.

Yes, the working group is aware of that. The current policy is indeed about all the remaining IPv4 space in RIPE NCC (that is not reserved for other purposes). Policy proposals for cleaning up the policy language are welcome!

> [...]
> But we have in RIPE ~14Mlns IPs more as same as in 2013.

It might look like RIPE NCC is not allocating much IPv4 space, but that impression is skewed. That is caused by IPv4 space coming to RIPE NCC from IANA. The statistics on what to expect from IANA in the coming years show that this is not sustainable and we are actually going through the remaining pool than the number appear to suggest.

> 4) This policy will make some other type of IPs, we make things more
> complex, but we should make things/rules/databases less complex. We
> don't need new one color of IP.

Well, the proposal did just get abandoned, so this implementation detail is definitely no longer relevant.

> 5) In case of such proposal ISPs will move to IPv6 more slowly. So RIPE
> push to everybody to go IPv6 and from other size they don't allow that
> to happen. Everybody understand that at America they just gave out all
> IPv4 and America is the most IPv6 country. So less limitations - more
> progress! So what do you select?

I'm not sure we can apply market economics as seen in the ARIN region directly to predict what would happen in the RIPE region...

> 6) As far as RIPE control limitations - RIPE control the market. And
> this is not correct.

Yes, the RIPE community sets the rules for resource allocation, assignment and transfer policies in the RIPE region. For this the community has the address policy working group. Setting these policies is its function, this is as intended.

Cheers,
Sander

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

[NTX NOC]

Greetings!

As additional information for oppose this proposal I would like to say next:

1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under
current polices for LIRs, there are a lot of space in it. And those
space will be used for new LIRs. You can see that it will be enough for
10-15 years or more.

https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph

2) Policy name should be not like /8 but on all free/reserve space
because it should relay on all rest. So name "/8" is not correct.

3) last year changes about LIRs and it's /22 we see that they didn't
make any significant change in new LIR stats. I told that already when
it was discussion of 24 month limitation and multilirs registration.
That doesn't make any sense on stats. Current rate will give 2-3 years
more space enough from 185 space. So thats more then enough.

Here is some stats for this year.

2016-1  214 219136  1.31%   48.49%  8134656
2016-2  280 287744  1.72%   46.77%  7846912
2016-3  285 291840  1.74%   45.03%  7555072
2016-4  314 321536  1.92%   43.11%  7233536
2016-5  312 336896  2.01%   41.1%   6896640
2016-6  239 244736  1.46%   39.64%  6651904
2016-7  231 236544  1.41%   38.23%  6415360
2016-8  300 303616  1.81%   36.42%  6111744
2016-9  317 325376  1.94%   34.48%  5786368
2016-10 279 284416  1.7%32.78%  5501952

But we have in RIPE ~14Mlns IPs more as same as in 2013.

So here I make conclusion that things that people told before about last
space will expire too fast is not true. That's just normal situation.

4) This policy will make some other type of IPs, we make things more
complex, but we should make things/rules/databases less complex. We
don't need new one color of IP.

5) In case of such proposal ISPs will move to IPv6 more slowly. So RIPE
push to everybody to go IPv6 and from other size they don't allow that
to happen. Everybody understand that at America they just gave out all
IPv4 and America is the most IPv6 country. So less limitations - more
progress! So what do you select?

6) As far as RIPE control limitations - RIPE control the market. And
this is not correct. As we see this is already not 1st time of the
limitations (/22, then IPv4 transfer 24month hold, then stop multilirs,
then limitations for companies overtaking that make impossible
overtaking between different countries, problem still exists)

So what do we select?
I will be thankful for feedback.


Yuri@NTX NOC







On 19.10.2016 11:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking 
> Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an impact 
> analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the 
> final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to 
> the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
> 
> Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
> 
> -Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of 
> company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer 
> restriction
> -Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 
> available pool
> 
> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
> 
> And the draft documents at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
> 
> We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make 
> your proposal evaluation easier.
> 
> -Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of 
> different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right 
> beside the list of proposal versions.
> -The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the proposal is 
> actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no 
> comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is 
> expected.
> 
> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to 
>  before 17 November 2016.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> 

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

[Telefon Ip]

Hi,




> > I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not
> waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size.
>
> The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received
> some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA are
> less and less each time, so that's not sustainable. Without that the pool
> would be more than half empty by now.
>
> As I've said, I've heard this story with the same explanation over and
over for already a few years. I don't think that this story is sustainable
either. The truth is almost everybody predicted the pool would last for 5
years and it's about the same size after 4. The same story was repeated
over and over that the last /8 is under attack and we must do everything to
protect it while this was never really documented and there were no actual
statistics to show a real problem.


> > Again, what is our purpose here ? Where is the imagined abuse ? Bring up
> some actual statistics not fake scary scenarios.
>
> I have no purpose but to keep discussions on this list productive and
> honest. I'll leave the statistics to the working group session and the
> authors of the policy proposals.
>

I  like facts and figures and I definitely look forward to the wg session.

Ciprian

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

[Plesa Niculae]

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae  wrote:
> 
> Hi Steffann,
> 
> I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch 
> it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to 
> hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you to make it public.
> Why are you tell me that I make an attack? Attack on who? Attack or defend a 
> member that was in the cross fire of chairs & friends? Please read all the 
> messages and you will see that Ciprian was under attack, he was the one first 
> receiving insults and fight back only after.
> 
> My answers to your comments are as follows:
> 
> - the facts are that Gert got IPs from the last /8 just 2 weeks before he did 
> the merger and he also keeps a /22 out of the last /8 for over 2 years 
> without being announced. This shows that he got the IPs even if he didn't 
> actually need them. This is not against the policies but it’s at least 
> immoral.
> 
> - he compared actions not people and telling somebody to shut up is a severe 
> offence. I saw some do not want to be democratic and civilised but I didn’t 
> expect group leaders to support such an authoritarian attitude.
> 
> - I understand how the policy works. I don’t understand when open for 
> discussion means “praise us and our ideas and shut up if you have anything to 
> say against it as we don't care about your opinions"!
> 
> I hope I was clear and straight with the explanations of my intervention. I 
> have no other reasons than democracy, justice and common sense. I can’t look 
> and do nothing when I saw somebody not treated correct because he had a 
> different opinion than the leaders.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Niculae Plesa
> 
> 
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 22:27, Sander Steffann  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Plesa,
>> 
>> Replying off-list because I don't want to drag this out any further.
>> 
>>> I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in 
>>> judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering 
>>> to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems 
>>> that he raised.
>> 
>> What facts? That one of the working group chairs works at an ISP and has 
>> merged with another ISP? There was nothing to discuss there, and the 
>> baseless allegations made by Ciprian were not worth responding to. Gert 
>> kindly responded anyway, and there is nothing more to discuss.
>> 
>>> Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody 
>>> has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, 
>>> like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks 
>>> bullshit and nobody complain about that language!
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but calling an argument bullshit vs using very offensive language 
>> like calling people Nazi's, comparing people to Hitler etc are in completely 
>> different leagues. Telling someone to shut up is not polite, but it's 
>> completely understandable after the abhorrent language used by Ciprian.
>> 
>>> So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick 
>>> together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting 
>>> back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost 
>>> feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with 
>>> cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of 
>>> speaking is I N C O R R E C T !
>> 
>> Comparing people to Hitler and Nazi's is more than colourful language and 
>> figures of speech. Ciprian apparently understood that, as he has publicly 
>> apologised.
>> 
>> Now, let's discuss policy again, without hateful language, insults and 
>> allegations.
>> 
>>> I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury 
>>> attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions 
>>> than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian, 
>>> Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up.
>> 
>> Don't worry, those voices have been heard.
>> 
>>> I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems 
>>> of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing 
>>> the existing policy.
>> 
>> Noted.
>> 
>>> By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by 
>>> ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the 
>>> current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the 
>>> policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient 
>>> quorum raises a HUGE question mark.
>> 
>> It was Ciprian making the attacks. And now you apparently. This end right 
>> now. These baseless accusations against proposers and chairs are 
>> unacceptable. The company that Gert works for has merged with another 
>> company, nothing more. I personally have never sold or bought address space 
>> at all. This 

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Ciprian,

> I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not waste 
> it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size.

The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received some 
last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA are less and 
less each time, so that's not sustainable. Without that the pool would be more 
than half empty by now.

> Again, what is our purpose here ? Where is the imagined abuse ? Bring up some 
> actual statistics not fake scary scenarios.

I have no purpose but to keep discussions on this list productive and honest. 
I'll leave the statistics to the working group session and the authors of the 
policy proposals.

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Telefon Ip]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi Arash,
>
> > If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now
> > looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should
> > not be supported by 2016-03.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the
> remaining pool is not drained by traders, keeping it available for longer
> for new companies that need them. If the "cheap" pool for newcomers runs
> out and address transfers become the *only* source for addresses, guess
> what will happen to the prices.


I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not
waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. Again,
what is our purpose here ? Where is the imagined abuse ? Bring up some
actual statistics not fake scary scenarios.

Ciprian

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Arash,

> I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they
> have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the
> prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region
> to other RIRs today? 

Good question. I'm sure the NCC will include such numbers I their presentation 
next week. I'm curious about that as well.

> Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members
> for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I
> don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders. Yes there is a
> percentage drained by traders, but comparing to the actual users that's not
> that much to put this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other
> restrictions in place)

Thanks for setting a good example of how to discuss policy proposal effects in 
a civil way. I completely understand your reasoning, and this is useful 
feedback.

Thank you!
Sander

(After all that has happened on this list recently I felt I had to encourage 
good discussions as well. I don't want to sound negative all the time :)

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

[Sander Steffann]

Sorry, bad auto correct:

> [...] need to come up with arguments and valid training

That should be "reasoning"

> that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild 
> and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful

That should be "not useful"

> for the policy development process.

Sorry for the typos,
Sander

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and 
> made this mess.

Please read my previous post.

> Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk and many many more who requested 
> huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit.
> 
> Thanks to traders like Elvis and Ciprian the problem evolved, but they just 
> used an open door and following the rules.

No ad hominem attacks on this list

> While some of you are techies in some ISP or even having your own business, 
> working hard for you, family, employees, making money, some company/IP trader 
> made a huge amount of money in a short amount of time ‘selling’ IP’s.
> 
> You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust 
> between 2005 and 2011, and you still permitted allocations with almost no 
> real proof of needing from the requester/LIR.

Those statements are false, please see the archives.

> This policy will not slow traders, and I think it will really affect the new 
> members that really needed the IP Spaces.

How? If they need the addresses then a policy that says that they can't sell 
them won't have any effect on them.

> A policy that tightens the allocation procedure with real verifications might 
> be better.
> 
> I do not support this policy

Sorry, for participating in a consensus based discussion you need to come up 
with arguments and valid training that can be discussed. Your message only 
contains ad hominem attacks and wild and inaccurate statements and is therefore 
for useful for the policy development process.

This working group is open to all for discussing policy development, but 
messages like this do not qualify as "discussing".

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu]

> On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour  wrote:
> 
> Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members
> for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I
> don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders. Yes there is a
> percentage drained by traders, but comparing to the actual users that's not
> that much to put this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other
> restrictions in place)

Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and made 
this mess.
Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk  and many many 
more who requested huge amount of
IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit.

Thanks to traders like Elvis and Ciprian the problem evolved, but they just 
used an open door and
following the rules.

While some of you are techies in some ISP or even having your own business, 
working hard for
you, family, employees, making money, some company/IP trader made a huge amount 
of money in
a short amount of time ‘selling’ IP’s.

You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust 
between 2005 and 2011,
and you still permitted allocations with almost no real proof of needing from 
the requester/LIR.

This policy will not slow traders, and I think it will really affect the new 
members that really needed the 
IP Spaces.

A policy that tightens the allocation procedure with real verifications might 
be better.

I do not support this policy

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

[Arash Naderpour]

Hi Sander,

I understand your point, but this already happened with other RIRs and they
have no "cheap" pool to fulfil new requests, what happened them and to the
prices in their region? Do we have many intra-RIR transfers from RIPE region
to other RIRs today? 

Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members
for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I
don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders. Yes there is a
percentage drained by traders, but comparing to the actual users that's not
that much to put this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other
restrictions in place)

Regards,

Arash Naderpour
 

-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann [mailto:san...@steffann.nl] 
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016 8:21 AM
To: Arash Naderpour <arash_...@parsun.com>
Cc: Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis
Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Arash,

> If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now 
> looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy 
> should not be supported by 2016-03.

I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining
pool is not drained by traders, keeping it available for longer for new
companies that need them. If the "cheap" pool for newcomers runs out and
address transfers become the *only* source for addresses, guess what will
happen to the prices.

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Arash,

> If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now
> looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should
> not be supported by 2016-03.

I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining 
pool is not drained by traders, keeping it available for longer for new 
companies that need them. If the "cheap" pool for newcomers runs out and 
address transfers become the *only* source for addresses, guess what will 
happen to the prices.

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Arash Naderpour]

Hi,

The ones that already have a grown business needs to be targeted to return
their IP addresses and switch to IPv6 as soon as possible, They already had
enough time, Not the ones that recently started. 
If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now
looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should
not be supported by 2016-03.

Hence Opposing 2016-03, -1.

Regards,

Arash


-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2016 5:01 AM
To: Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis
Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

> I think you are missing that LIRs before 09/2012 are sitting on unused
space. Not me, not us LIR after 09/2012.
> We just need space now to grow our new businesses. Who wants to sell space
to who?

If new businesses depend on getting IPv4 addresses to grow then they're on a
losing strategy from the start... It's hard, but we've know for many years
that that's the way it is.

Cheers,
Sander

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Mikael, Hi Sander,


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

Hi Mikael,


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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




Cheers,
Sander



cheers
Riccardo

--

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


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


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

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Mikael,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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

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


Correct.

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

[Ciprian Nica]

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

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

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

Have a nice weekend,
Ciprian

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

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

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi,

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

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

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

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

this fixes only a tiny bit of the problem.

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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



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

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


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


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



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

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

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hello Sergey,

> If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6
> networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process.

You seem to misunderstand how this works. It is the community that sets these 
policies, not the NCC. The RIPE NCC implements what the internet community (us) 
wants it to do. The NCC definitely isn't stretching the process of getting IPv6 
deployed, quite the opposite.

> So I opposite this proposal.

Noted.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Sergey Stecenko]

Hi.

If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6
networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. This proposal
will create more problems than benefit. If you remember the NCC
already restricted multi LIR accounts and then asked members to vote
to cancel it. Moreover there is already 24 month restriction for
transfers. It is enough.

So I opposite this proposal.

---
Rgds,
Serj


2016-10-20 22:44 GMT+03:00 Stefan van Westering :
> Hi,
>
> I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the
> proper location to "vote" for this proposal.
>
> I support this proposal and thus:
> I say +1 for the proposal.
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
>
> Stefan van Westering
>
>
>
> SoftTech Automatisering B.V.
>
>
> Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert Doering  het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>
> I oppose both policies.
>
>
> For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair
>
> nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or
>
> important changes which should never be added just like that, as some
>
> changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)
>
>
> As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody
>
> saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying
>
> that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool
>
> sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?
>
>
> Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that
> has a Subject: that says "2016-03".
>
> This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives
> later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then,
> if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03
> thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment.  Right?
>
> 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

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

[Stefan van Westering]

Hi,

I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the proper 
location to "vote" for this proposal.

I support this proposal and thus:
I say +1 for the proposal.

With kind regards,

Stefan van Westering

SoftTech Automatisering B.V.

Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert Doering 
> het volgende geschreven:

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair
nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or
important changes which should never be added just like that, as some
changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody
saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying
that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool
sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that
has a Subject: that says "2016-03".

This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives
later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then,
if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03
thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment.  Right?

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

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

[Andrew de la Haye]

Dear Peter,


[from the impact assessmant]

Returned IPv4 addresses from LIRs and End Users and addresses received 
from IANA's recovered pool are currently added to the RIPE NCC's 
available IPv4 pool. >If this proposal is accepted, legacy resources 
that have been handed over to the RIPE NCC will also be added to the 
available pool. Currently, the RIPE NCC >holds a total of ten /24 IPv4 
legacy resources.


With apologies for lack of research; under what policy was this space 
"accepted"

and not marked for return to IANA?


There is no policy to give us guidance on what to do with received 
legacy space. However, the RIPE NCC has previously taken the initiative 
and returned address space to IANA on two separate occasions:


22 May 2012
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-returns-legacy-address-space-to-iana

22 April 2014
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/legacy-ipv4-address-space-returned-to-iana

More recently, we have kept this address space separate and have not 
added it to our available pool.


Kind regards

Andrew de la Haye
Chief Operations Officer
RIPE NCC

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I oppose both policies.
> 
> For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair
> nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or
> important changes which should never be added just like that, as some
> changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)
> 
> As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody
> saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying
> that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool
> sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that
has a Subject: that says "2016-03".

This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives
later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then,
if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03
thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment.  Right?

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Ciprian Nica]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > If I would moderate the list I would remove people
>
> let's not
>
> Ok, I can be a hater too sometimes but I don't like it.

> I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader
> > says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins
> > just sit in the room and applause.
>
> i assure you that this is not just from communist times.  are you seeing
> what is going on in britain, the states, ...?
>
> Yes, bullshit (I was told this is an acceptable word here) happens all
over the world and we are bringing it here as well.


> could you please set an example and pick one small issue in this
> document and discuss its pros and cons?
>

I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair
nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or
important changes which should never be added just like that, as some
changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody
saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying
that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool
sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Let's discuss a single fact which should guide us towards properly
improving policies.

What do you people want ? To kill IPv4 or to make it more desirable, more
valuable ? Let's first agree on this and after that we can set our foot in
the right direction.

Ciprian

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

[Randy Bush]

> If I would moderate the list I would remove people

let's not

> I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader
> says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins
> just sit in the room and applause.

i assure you that this is not just from communist times.  are you seeing
what is going on in britain, the states, ...?

could you please set an example and pick one small issue in this
document and discuss its pros and cons?

randy

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

[Ciprian Nica]

Hi,

Over the years I saw many "haters" which are against this business. I
didn't invent it and the real money goes to the ones that got the resources
for "free" and then seek to make a fortune out of it. There were people in
the first years telling me that this business is illegal. Well, I guess
this is something that all pioneers have to deal with.

If I would moderate the list I would remove people that make such
affirmations. I do hope that every sane person over here can accept
criticism. I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a
leader says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of
penguins just sit in the room and applause.

Let's get to reason and sanity (hopefull we all can do that). For the
moment we have to discuss the current policies and then come up with some
better ones as many people complain about the current situation.

So we have to discuss a policy that is suppose to organize things but it
inserts important changes and a policy which is against the interest of
most of the voices around here. In my opinion they need to get dropped and
we need to take one issue at a time and figure out how to fix it.

Again, I'm like any of you and definitely not against any single person.
Obviously there are people which I like and people which I dislike. But
let's be civil and discuss ideas not people as nobody is perfect but we
have enough capable brains among us to produce good ideas that would
benefit every honest member of the community.

Let's stop focusing on policies "against" and try to do things that move
things forward in a positive way. Everybody can figure out what their goal
are but (maybe it's unfortunate) our society is mostly driven and blinded
by profit. That's how is it and we can't ignore it. IPv6 makes companies
rich, probably more than IPv4 does. People seeking "world peace" are a
great asset to our world but I'm afraid that won't happen during our
lifetime.

Enjoy Madrid, have fun, and try to treat life in a bit more positive way.
Hate will never bring anything postive, not even to the hater.

Ciprian

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Hank Nussbacher  wrote:

> I'll rephrase:
> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.  Their view is
> strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.
>
> Better?
>
> Hank
>

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

[Randy Bush]

> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is
> strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.

i understand your position.  but my problems are up a couple of layers.

we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot
of new members.  while having new blood is a good balance to us old
fossils, the culture relied too much on unspoken common perceptions,
practices, and goals.  we are not good at articulating them and making
them accessible to the new blood.  so we write more and more complex
policy documents, have lots of votes, ... [0].

and the world is changing, becoming more commercial, less academic and
public service oriented.  and some of us do not do as well with change
as we might; a well-known trait of the, sad to say, majority gender.
we need to get over it.

i do not think we can, or maybe not even should want to, roll things
back to the rosier (or so we fondly think) past.  but we can try to
move forward with some courtesy and civility and an effort to see
everyone's viewpoint, especially of those with whom we think we
disagree.

and we can try to explain our positions and expectations a bit more
clearly in order to compensate for the lack of documentation (that is
not a plea for more policy documents or paperwork).

randy

--

0 - this ongoing wg chair voting thing is such a great example.  we had
a small problem and the cure is a monster.  hence my 'pigasus' (you
have to google it; i was there) comment.

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

[Hank Nussbacher]

I'll rephrase:
I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.  Their view is strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.
Better?
Hank

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

[listas]

I think the problem in the end is how we consider what is an public IP prefix.

In my city (Madrid, Spain, if you have curiosity, welcome to the city hosting 
RIPE 73), we have taxis. A license to have a taxi is assigned for life and when 
the owner retires, he can sell it for whatever he wants and the market is able 
to pay. Of course the number of licenses is limited.

We have also a electric car sharing system (car2go) that allow you to rent a 
car and pay for its usage. When the usage finish, the user return the car, no 
money returned, can't "sell" it because is not the owner.
Of course the number of cars is limited.

Those are two views on how to manage scarce resources. For some people public 
IP allocation should follow the first method. More "capitalist" it can be said, 
for others, the second, more "social", is the best.

I'm of the second group. For me the IPs is something that is lend to me to do 
my work and not to trade them.

Some time ago (before the last /8) I worked with a company that in one moment 
didn't need anymore their IPs (mother company delegated a range) so advised by 
me they returned them to RIPE and closed the LIR.

That's how I see it.

Note: my mail is educated and don't address nobody personally. Please keep the 
conversation at the same level. Demonstrate you're respected engineers and not 
hooligans.


Enviado desde mi iPhone

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

[Mozafary Mohammad]

Hello

As Nick said, unregistered transfer will become problem on updating 
"RIPE Database" and as you know the database is main reason of RIRs mission.


Also IP is IP and it's now important it's on last /8 or not.All IPs 
owner should have same right to transfer/re-allocation.



On 10/19/2016 1:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

Marco Schmidt wrote:

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to
 before 17 November 2016.

The purpose of the policy is to restrict the flow of /22 allocations
from the RIPE remaining ipv4 pool.  While I'm sympathetic to this idea,
the policy is not going to fix the problem that it sets out to fix and
will create a new set of problems which will be extremely difficult for
the RIPE NCC to recover from.  Consequently I do not support it, because:

1. the core problem won't be fixed: the outgoing flow of /22s will not
be affected in any way because speculators will get allocations using
shelf Companies which can be sold as-is, thereby bypassing any policy
that the RIPE community might want to consider in this area.  The only
way to even begin to fix this would be to move back to a needs-based
allocation policy.

2. unregistered transfers will become a problem and this may become
intractable in the future.  This directly goes against the core
principals of the RIPE database which is to ensure accurate registration
of address holder details.

Also, asset divesting is not catered for in the policy. If a company /
LIR splits up, there is no way to handle splitting of IPv4 address
allocations in the policy.  There is no clear way to fix this problem
within the principals of the policy.

As an aside note, the problem of ipv4 allocation speedup from the RIPE
NCC has been exacerbated by the recent RIPE NCC GM resolution: "The
General Meeting approves the ability of RIPE NCC members to create
additional LIR accounts".  The net effect of this is that there is now a
divergence between intended RIPE policy and RIPE NCC implementation.
This is probably not helpful in the long run.

Nick

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

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 19/10/2016 16:37, Ciprian Nica wrote:

Gert,

Whatever proposal(s) Ciprian supports considers my vote as a "-1".

-Hank

> The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and
> "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin
> than here.
>
> Yes, the noise is what Gert did 2 years ago. Let's get over it and
> discuss what is really important.
>
> Please express your support for the two important ideas which are
> "let's ignore the minority because that's what minority does, it's
> simply against the majority" and "let's ignore people we don't like".
> Maybe we can set up some criteria for that ? Send your "+1" for the
> two ideas if you support them. There's no need for praising Gert
> anymore. I got the idea, he's one of the beloved sons of RIPE community.
>
> Ciprian
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen  > wrote:
>
> Ciprian Nica,
>
> If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing
> something
> take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST!
>
> Can you please for now just shut up with your noise?
>
>
>
>
> Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever,
>
> can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a
> warning and
> possible forced unsub?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ciprian Nica  > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step
> up and
> >> block things when
> >> they see clear abuse.
> >
> >
> > Here is the fact:
> >
> > % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an
> object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417
> >
> > descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> > org:ORG-TA16-RIPE
> >
> >
> > % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an
> object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-SPACE-20140417
> >
> > descr:  SpaceNet AG
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> >
> >
> > 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he
> has a /22
> > which was never announced in the internet.
> >
> > Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus
> getting a /22
> > just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.
> >
> > I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
> > accusations. These are the facts.
> >
> > So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this
> community. Praise
> > him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing
> this out.
> >
> > Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if
> that's the kind
> > of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to
> express my
> > opinion ?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
> rog...@gmail.com   | - IPv6 is
> The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no
> 
>
>

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

[Riccardo Gori]

I think these observations are more than reasonable
thank you Nick
regards
Riccardo

Il 19/10/2016 11:53, Nick Hilliard ha scritto:

Marco Schmidt wrote:

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to
 before 17 November 2016.

The purpose of the policy is to restrict the flow of /22 allocations
from the RIPE remaining ipv4 pool.  While I'm sympathetic to this idea,
the policy is not going to fix the problem that it sets out to fix and
will create a new set of problems which will be extremely difficult for
the RIPE NCC to recover from.  Consequently I do not support it, because:

1. the core problem won't be fixed: the outgoing flow of /22s will not
be affected in any way because speculators will get allocations using
shelf Companies which can be sold as-is, thereby bypassing any policy
that the RIPE community might want to consider in this area.  The only
way to even begin to fix this would be to move back to a needs-based
allocation policy.

2. unregistered transfers will become a problem and this may become
intractable in the future.  This directly goes against the core
principals of the RIPE database which is to ensure accurate registration
of address holder details.

Also, asset divesting is not catered for in the policy. If a company /
LIR splits up, there is no way to handle splitting of IPv4 address
allocations in the policy.  There is no clear way to fix this problem
within the principals of the policy.

As an aside note, the problem of ipv4 allocation speedup from the RIPE
NCC has been exacerbated by the recent RIPE NCC GM resolution: "The
General Meeting approves the ability of RIPE NCC members to create
additional LIR accounts".  The net effect of this is that there is now a
divergence between intended RIPE policy and RIPE NCC implementation.
This is probably not helpful in the long run.

Nick



--

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)

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

[Plesa Niculae]

Dear all,
I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging 
Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS 
presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised.
Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody has 
noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, like: 
SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks bullshit and 
nobody complain about that language!
So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick 
together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting back on 
the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems.
I almost feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens 
with cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of 
speaking is I N C O R R E C T ! I feel also obliged to thank very much to the 
ones not blinded by the fury attacks of the policy change initiators on the 
ones with different opinions than theirs and only focused on the real matters 
that Aleksey, Ciprian, Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up. 
I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems of 
the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing the 
existing policy. By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the 
policy and by ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which 
they use the current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to 
modify the policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and 
insufficient quorum raises a HUGE question mark.
Best Regards,
Niculae Plesa

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

[Alexey Galaev]

Agree with Sascha.

-1 for this policy from me.

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

- Исходное сообщение -
От: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <a...@c4inet.net>
Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Отправленные: Среда, 19 Октябрь 2016 г 17:36:18
Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published 
(Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I still oppose this proposal. 

Rationale:

1) It creates yet another class of address space when the
goal should be to have only one class.

2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE
community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an
IPv4 "black market", something that the "last /8" policy was
*specifically* supposed to prevent. This has direct implications
for the quality of registry records, particularly with regard to
who *actually* controls a resource.

3) The impact on IPv4 resource consumption is determined by the
NCC Impact statement to be "small". This small reduction comes at
the price of increased bureaucracy and cost for the businesses
that make up the membership. 

4) The proposal establishes, as the overriding goal of IP(v4)
policy, the conservation of IPv4 resources. This should not be
the case, the overriding goal should instead be a transition to
IPv6 as quickly as possible. (Re-arranging the deck chairs will
not prevent the ship from sinking)

rgds,
Sascha Luck

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

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

I still oppose this proposal. 


Rationale:

1) It creates yet another class of address space when the
goal should be to have only one class.

2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE
community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an
IPv4 "black market", something that the "last /8" policy was
*specifically* supposed to prevent. This has direct implications
for the quality of registry records, particularly with regard to
who *actually* controls a resource.

3) The impact on IPv4 resource consumption is determined by the
NCC Impact statement to be "small". This small reduction comes at
the price of increased bureaucracy and cost for the businesses
that make up the membership. 


4) The proposal establishes, as the overriding goal of IP(v4)
policy, the conservation of IPv4 resources. This should not be
the case, the overriding goal should instead be a transition to
IPv6 as quickly as possible. (Re-arranging the deck chairs will
not prevent the ship from sinking)

rgds,
Sascha Luck

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:10:15PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I
> understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban"
> regular transfer after mergers. 

To clarify: I neither actively support (= push) nor oppose this change.  

It's Erik Bais' proposal.

gert
-- 
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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:14:38PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I appologize to Gert, once again.

Thanks, apology accepted.

So - can we please return to discussing policy, based on the current version
of the proposals(!), now?  :-)

Gert Doering
-- list member, no hats
-- 
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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Ciprian Nica]

Hi,

I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I
understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban"
regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04
would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring
important changes.

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he
> > never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger &
> > acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy
> > 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ?
>
> OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate,
> because
> I wanted to let this thread die silently.
>
> I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything
> through the policy 2015-04".  Erik Bais is.
>
> I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might
> have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy
> document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly
> not on the aspect of "after a M, transfers of acquired space is no
> longer possible for 24 months".
>
> If you try to actually understand what this document says:
>
>  "The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources
>   that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s
>   business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important
>   to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ?
>   resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due
>   to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period."
>
> this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their
> resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's
> resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do.
>
>
> In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the
> subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states:
>
>  "5.5 Transfers of Allocations
>   ...
>   4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership
>  of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions"
>
> The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple
> /22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but
> that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it
> very clear that that was not wanted.
>
>
> So, whatever point you are trying to make
>
>  - I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals
>  - AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s
>
>
> > But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies
> > which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which
> seem
> > far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be
> seen
> > by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away
> > and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't.
>
> Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and
> understood
> my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-)  (especially the
> bits
> about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase").
>
> ... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are
> at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted
> corrections in the past.
>
>
> > I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and
> > admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let
> Sanders
> > take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time,
> then
> > ... just praise him, what else would you do ?
>
> There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so,
> and put down the chair duties for these.
>
>
> So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject:
> line now (which happens to be 2016-03)?  If not, please change the
> Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not
> related to the specific policies at hand.
>
> Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus.
>
> 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
>

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

[Ciprian Nica]

I accept the warning and I also found about Godwin today. Matbe I should
have made a more appropriate comparison.

I appologize to Gert, once again.

Please take some action against poeple which attack me personally just
because they don't like what I say. Or maybe my colour, sexual orientation
or whatever it is that they would not like about me.

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Sander Steffann  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler  > het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Ciprian
> >
> > You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list.
> >
> > This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons.
>
> Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an official warning from the
> chairs.
>
> Ciprian: your language and analogies are unacceptable on this mailing list
> (well, any mailing list as far as I'm concerned, but I only chair this
> one). As Peter said:
>
> > You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your
> behaviour on this list.
>
> On the positive side: I didn't know about Godwin's Law, so I learned
> something today :)
>
> Thank you,
> Sander
> RIPE APWG co-chair
>
>

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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi,

> Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Ciprian
> 
> You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list.
> 
> This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons.

Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an official warning from the chairs.

Ciprian: your language and analogies are unacceptable on this mailing list 
(well, any mailing list as far as I'm concerned, but I only chair this one). As 
Peter said:

> You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour 
> on this list.

On the positive side: I didn't know about Godwin's Law, so I learned something 
today :)

Thank you,
Sander
RIPE APWG co-chair



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he
> never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger &
> acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy
> 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ?

OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate, because
I wanted to let this thread die silently.

I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything 
through the policy 2015-04".  Erik Bais is.

I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might
have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy
document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly
not on the aspect of "after a M, transfers of acquired space is no
longer possible for 24 months".

If you try to actually understand what this document says: 

 "The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources
  that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s
  business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important
  to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ?
  resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due
  to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period."

this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their
resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's
resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do.


In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the 
subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states:

 "5.5 Transfers of Allocations
  ...
  4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership 
 of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions"

The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple
/22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but
that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it 
very clear that that was not wanted.


So, whatever point you are trying to make

 - I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals
 - AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s


> But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies
> which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem
> far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen
> by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away
> and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't.

Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and understood
my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-)  (especially the bits
about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase").

... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are
at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted
corrections in the past.


> I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and
> admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders
> take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then
> ... just praise him, what else would you do ?

There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so,
and put down the chair duties for these.


So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject:
line now (which happens to be 2016-03)?  If not, please change the 
Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not
related to the specific policies at hand.

Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus.

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Ciprian Nica]

The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and
"unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin than
here.

Yes, the noise is what Gert did 2 years ago. Let's get over it and discuss
what is really important.

Please express your support for the two important ideas which are "let's
ignore the minority because that's what minority does, it's simply against
the majority" and "let's ignore people we don't like". Maybe we can set up
some criteria for that ? Send your "+1" for the two ideas if you support
them. There's no need for praising Gert anymore. I got the idea, he's one
of the beloved sons of RIPE community.

Ciprian




On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen  wrote:

> Ciprian Nica,
>
> If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something
> take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST!
>
> Can you please for now just shut up with your noise?
>
>
>
>
> Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever,
>
> can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning
> and
> possible forced unsub?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ciprian Nica  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and
> >> block things when
> >> they see clear abuse.
> >
> >
> > Here is the fact:
> >
> > % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417
> >
> > descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> > org:ORG-TA16-RIPE
> >
> >
> > % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-SPACE-20140417
> >
> > descr:  SpaceNet AG
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> >
> >
> > 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a
> /22
> > which was never announced in the internet.
> >
> > Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a
> /22
> > just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.
> >
> > I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
> > accusations. These are the facts.
> >
> > So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community.
> Praise
> > him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out.
> >
> > Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the
> kind
> > of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express
> my
> > opinion ?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Jorgensen   | ROJO9-RIPE
> rog...@gmail.com  | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | ro...@jorgensen.no
>

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

Ciprian Nica,

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

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




Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever,

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



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



-- 

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

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

[listas]

+1
> El 19/10/2016, a las 14:27, Wolfgang Tremmel  
> escribió:
> 
> 
>> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering  wrote:
>> 
>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
>> policy WG.
> 
> +1
> 
> I know Gert now for 15+ years and never doubted his integrity.
> 
> And thanks for still doing the job - I imagine in 20+ years we all will 
> wonder why anybody ever cared about the distribution of IPv4 addresses as 
> everybody is happily using IPv6 
> 
> best regards
> Wolfgang
> 
> -- 
> Wolfgang Tremmel 
> 
> Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net
> Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | 
> Germany | www.de-cix.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Ciprian Nica]

No, you are the one wasting my time and if anyone else has something to
tell to me I'll be available in Madrid starting tomorrow.  Please first
read carefully and try to understand what I wrote.

I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he
never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger &
acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy
2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ?

But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies
which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem
far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen
by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away
and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't.

I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and
admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders
take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then
... just praise him, what else would you do ?

Ciprian


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Enno Rey  wrote:

> Ciprian,
>
> a simple inquiry with the search engine of your choice would have revealed
> there was a M process involved in the transaction below.
> Making false accusations is probably even worse then ad hominem attacks.
>
> Feel free to reply to me off-list or approach me in Madrid in case you
> intend to reply to this. That way you're only wasting my time.
>
> thanks
>
> Enno
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:10:59PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > > I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and
> > > block things when
> > > they see clear abuse.
> > >
> >
> > Here is the fact:
> >
> > % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417
> >
> > descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> > org:ORG-TA16-RIPE
> >
> >
> > % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> >
> > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41
> >
> > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> >
> >
> > inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> >
> > netname:DE-SPACE-20140417
> >
> > descr:  SpaceNet AG
> >
> > country:DE
> >
> >
> > 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a
> /22
> > which was never announced in the internet.
> >
> > Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a
> > /22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.
> >
> > I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
> > accusations. These are the facts.
> >
> > So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community.
> > Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this
> > out.
> >
> > Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the
> kind
> > of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express
> my
> > opinion ?
>
> --
> Enno Rey
>
> ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
> Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902
>
> Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey
>
> ===
> Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
> Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
> ===
>
>

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

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Roger Jørgensen  wrote:

>
> Guess it's a last resort when they see that they are running out of
> arguments? And amazing that
> some people have turned to "personal" attacks here rather than
> discussing the policy at hand.
>
>
> Either way - well handled Gert, you got my full support.
>

I agree completely, thanks for voicing it that way.

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

I support the proposal.

The current text appears sufficiently improved to address the concerns
raised, as I see it.

-- 
Jan

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

[Gerald K.]

I'am totally fine with Gert as WG chair. He represent the initial
attitude of the RIPE NCC ("serving" the community) much more then the
(few?) others on this list which provoke with their new commercial
business plans based only on the one fact that IPv4 will run out and
therefore could be considered as an valuable asset to make $$$ from IP
addresses directly without any technical need.

Yes this it capitalism. But I do not have to like it in every case. And
I do not like it in this case.

--
Gerald (AS20783)

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

[Enno Rey]

Ciprian,

a simple inquiry with the search engine of your choice would have revealed 
there was a M process involved in the transaction below.
Making false accusations is probably even worse then ad hominem attacks.

Feel free to reply to me off-list or approach me in Madrid in case you intend 
to reply to this. That way you're only wasting my time.

thanks

Enno



On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:10:59PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and
> > block things when
> > they see clear abuse.
> >
> 
> Here is the fact:
> 
> % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> 
> % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59
> 
> % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> 
> 
> inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> 
> netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417
> 
> descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH
> 
> country:DE
> 
> org:ORG-TA16-RIPE
> 
> 
> % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"
> 
> % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41
> 
> % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
> 
> 
> inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255
> 
> netname:DE-SPACE-20140417
> 
> descr:  SpaceNet AG
> 
> country:DE
> 
> 
> 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22
> which was never announced in the internet.
> 
> Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a
> /22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.
> 
> I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
> accusations. These are the facts.
> 
> So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community.
> Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this
> out.
> 
> Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind
> of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my
> opinion ?

-- 
Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey

===
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
===

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

[Ciprian Nica]

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

Here is the fact:

% Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.


inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname:DE-TRANSNET-20140417

descr:  TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH

country:DE

org:ORG-TA16-RIPE


% Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.


inetnum:185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname:DE-SPACE-20140417

descr:  SpaceNet AG

country:DE


13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22
which was never announced in the internet.

Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a
/22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.

I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild
accusations. These are the facts.

So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community.
Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this
out.

Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind
of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my
opinion ?

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

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

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


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



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



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

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



-- 

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

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

[Peter Hessler]

Ciprian

You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list.

This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons.

You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your
behaviour on this list.  Nobody, and certainly NOT Gert or anyone else
on a mailing list deserves to be treated that way.

-peter

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

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2016 Ciprian Nica scripsit:

[...]
> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was
> also a very praised man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


Best
Max

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

[Rob Evans]

> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was
> also a very praised man.

Godwin!

Rob

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

[Ciprian Nica]

As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple
weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not
for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the
merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well
but that's neither important.

What raises a question is the fact that you say you treat opinions based on
the person that issues that opinion and not just the idea and that you
induce the idea that a minority's voice should be ignored because it's
obvious a minority would just oppose the majority. These are the problems
that need to be dealt with. I will never support discrimination based on
appartenance to a minority or personal feelings based on previous
experience.

Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was
also a very praised man. Let's stop with the personal feelings between us
and discuss the ideas which are the important ones. I will not bring into
discussion the "petty crime" that you did by taking advantage of the
policies and putting aside a /22 from the last /8. It was wrong of me to
mention it and it really is not important at all.

Ciprian


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
> > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
> > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
> > judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
> > according to your interests ?
>
> Since you insist on riding that horse, I can no longer ignore it - so
> you'll have your answer.  On record.
>
> Yes, one of the LIRs that I represent in RIPE member issues (de.space)
> is holding two /22s out of 185/8.  The second /22 came into this LIR
> together with two /19s, some equipment, an extra employee, and a number
> of customers when we acquired a smaller regional ISP in 2014.
>
> As per community policy, this is well within letter and *spirit* of the
> policy - the LIR acquired was not "set up to get a /22 and be bought"
> (it existed for some 15 years), it was providing ISP services, and
> there were reasons that do not need to be disclosed that the owners wanted
> to sell it, which had nothing to do with IP addresses.  The acquisition
> went through the regular M process with the RIPE NCC, and all documents
> were properly scrutinized (and I can tell stories how much detail the
> NCC will check, and how much paperwork is involved).
>
>
> Does the number of IP addresses one of the LIRs I can represent hold
> have any relevance on my serving as WG chair?  No.
>
>
> Am I neutral regarding address policy?  Well, I do my best.
>
> Sometimes this is not easy, as I do have strong concerns for the well-being
> of the Internet globally and in the RIPE region - but this is why there
> is two chairs here: Sander will double-check every decision made, and
> everything is public anyway.  Summaries are written for a reason, and
> decisions are based *on posts on the list*, so it does not really matter
> how neutral I am, as everything is public, and you can double-check the
> conclusions (and possible call up the arbitration procedure).
>
>
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address
> policy WG.
>
> 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
>

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

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 19/10/2016 14:59, Gert Doering wrote:
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
> policy WG.

As do I.

-Hank
>
> Gert Doering
> -- APWG chair

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

[Wolfgang Tremmel]

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering  wrote:
> 
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
> policy WG.

+1

I know Gert now for 15+ years and never doubted his integrity.

And thanks for still doing the job - I imagine in 20+ years we all will wonder 
why anybody ever cared about the distribution of IPv4 addresses as everybody is 
happily using IPv6 

best regards
Wolfgang

-- 
Wolfgang Tremmel 

Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | wolfgang.trem...@de-cix.net
Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135
DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany 
| www.de-cix.net

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger  wrote:
> 
>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
>> policy WG.
> 
> Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more
> thankless by the day.

+100. I’m stunned beyond disbelief that Gert’s (or Sander’s) credentials could 
even questioned.

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

[Sebastian Wiesinger]

* Gert Doering  [2016-10-19 14:03]:
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
> policy WG.

Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more
thankless by the day.

Nothing else to add except that I will mark the day when we run out of
the last pool or (preferably) IPv6 takes over. I think some kind of
celebration and/or group therapy will be in order.

Best 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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[NTX NOC]

Greetings!

Also -1.

I think the current policy that prevents transfers for 24 months is more
then enough.

There no need to change anything and make live more complex, hard and worse.

We already have problems with merges when ripe start to request registry
updates and that makes merges between international companies impossible
in real.

For last 1-2 years while we discuss limitations for new LIRs there was
too much talks that all will crash if we don't accept new polices. But
you can see by LIR registration stats that those changes doesn't affect
stats at all.

LIRs can get IPs. RIPE has more then enough IPs.
Let's better work on IPv6.

People don't need any locking and new statuses in inetnum-s.


Yuri.


On 19.10.2016 12:19, Patrick Velder wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I still disagree changing the status of already allocated resources.
> 
> -1 from me.
> 
> Regards
> Patrick
> 
> 
> On 19.10.2016 10:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03,
>> "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with
>> an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
>>
>> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made
>> under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources
>> must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
>>
>> Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
>>
>> -Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a
>> result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed
>> transfer restriction
>> -Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the
>> IPv4 available pool
>>
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
>>
>> And the draft documents at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
>>
>> We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will
>> make your proposal evaluation easier.
>>
>> -Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy
>> comparison of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View
>> Changes” symbol right beside the list of proposal versions.
>> -The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the
>> proposal is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the
>> analysis makes no comment about financial or legal impact, it means
>> that no such impact is expected.
>>
>> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to
>>  before 17 November 2016.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>>
> 
> 

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

[Tore Anderson]

* Gert Doering

> I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy
> WG.

+1

Tore

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

[Dickinson, Ian]

Nick sums up my opinion admirably. Whilst I have some sympathy with the aim, I 
do not believe it will achieve it, and there will be some unwarranted 
side-effects.

-1 Do not support as is

Ian

-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Nick Hilliard
Sent: 19 October 2016 10:53
To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis 
Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Marco Schmidt wrote:
> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to
> <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.

The purpose of the policy is to restrict the flow of /22 allocations
from the RIPE remaining ipv4 pool.  While I'm sympathetic to this idea,
the policy is not going to fix the problem that it sets out to fix and
will create a new set of problems which will be extremely difficult for
the RIPE NCC to recover from.  Consequently I do not support it, because:

1. the core problem won't be fixed: the outgoing flow of /22s will not
be affected in any way because speculators will get allocations using
shelf Companies which can be sold as-is, thereby bypassing any policy
that the RIPE community might want to consider in this area.  The only
way to even begin to fix this would be to move back to a needs-based
allocation policy.

2. unregistered transfers will become a problem and this may become
intractable in the future.  This directly goes against the core
principals of the RIPE database which is to ensure accurate registration
of address holder details.

Also, asset divesting is not catered for in the policy. If a company /
LIR splits up, there is no way to handle splitting of IPv4 address
allocations in the policy.  There is no clear way to fix this problem
within the principals of the policy.

As an aside note, the problem of ipv4 allocation speedup from the RIPE
NCC has been exacerbated by the recent RIPE NCC GM resolution: "The
General Meeting approves the ability of RIPE NCC members to create
additional LIR accounts".  The net effect of this is that there is now a
divergence between intended RIPE policy and RIPE NCC implementation.
This is probably not helpful in the long run.

Nick

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, 
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed 
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you 
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete 
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, 
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to 
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. 
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and 
are used under licence.

Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited 
(Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration 
No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 
2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in 
England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, 
Middlesex TW7 5QD.

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
> Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
> neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
> judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
> according to your interests ?

Since you insist on riding that horse, I can no longer ignore it - so
you'll have your answer.  On record.

Yes, one of the LIRs that I represent in RIPE member issues (de.space) 
is holding two /22s out of 185/8.  The second /22 came into this LIR 
together with two /19s, some equipment, an extra employee, and a number 
of customers when we acquired a smaller regional ISP in 2014.

As per community policy, this is well within letter and *spirit* of the
policy - the LIR acquired was not "set up to get a /22 and be bought"
(it existed for some 15 years), it was providing ISP services, and
there were reasons that do not need to be disclosed that the owners wanted
to sell it, which had nothing to do with IP addresses.  The acquisition
went through the regular M process with the RIPE NCC, and all documents
were properly scrutinized (and I can tell stories how much detail the
NCC will check, and how much paperwork is involved).


Does the number of IP addresses one of the LIRs I can represent hold
have any relevance on my serving as WG chair?  No.


Am I neutral regarding address policy?  Well, I do my best.  

Sometimes this is not easy, as I do have strong concerns for the well-being 
of the Internet globally and in the RIPE region - but this is why there 
is two chairs here: Sander will double-check every decision made, and 
everything is public anyway.  Summaries are written for a reason, and 
decisions are based *on posts on the list*, so it does not really matter 
how neutral I am, as everything is public, and you can double-check the 
conclusions (and possible call up the arbitration procedure).


So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address 
policy WG.

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sebastian Wiesinger]

* Ciprian Nica  [2016-10-19 13:36]:
> I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or
> about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and
> appreciate ideas to their value.
[..]
> What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really
> don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can

Yeah I can see how objective you are. But this is good. I can make a
blacklist of broker companies just by reading this mailinglist.

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Dickinson, Ian]

Please be civil Ciprian.

This just reads like the standard tactic of throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

Ian

From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf 
Of Ciprian Nica
Sent: 19 October 2016 12:35
To: Gert Doering <g...@space.net>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis 
Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about 
ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate 
ideas to their value.

But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with 
the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. As a WG Chair my opinion is that you 
should not take sides. Also NCC should not express opinions but implement 
policies fairly.

It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: 
did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer 
or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ? Or is 
it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ?

What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really don't 
discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can support 
their ideas, as well as there are many people which I admire and which I can 
heavily oppose when it's the case. That's what we all shoud do. But you are not 
one of us, you are the Chair so we have different expectations. Maybe we 
shouldn't but then what is really your "job" over here ?

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering 
<g...@space.net<mailto:g...@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote
> > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
> > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
> > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
> > extent the person making a certain argument).
>
> I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from the
> WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
> who is making it and not objectively ?

If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain
minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very
loudly that they will oppose the proposal.  It would be very surprising
to see otherwise.

Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their
abusive behaviour?  Not very much so.

Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means,
so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.


I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating
RIPE DB T, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion
is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible,
well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than
yelling...

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
Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, 
confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed 
may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you 
have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete 
it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, 
use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to 
monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. 
SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and 
are used under licence.

Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited 
(Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration 
No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 
2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in 
England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, 
Middlesex TW7 5QD.

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

[Ciprian Nica]

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or
about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and
appreciate ideas to their value.

But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but
with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. As a WG Chair my opinion is
that you should not take sides. Also NCC should not express opinions but
implement policies fairly.

It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
according to your interests ?

What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really
don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can
support their ideas, as well as there are many people which I admire and
which I can heavily oppose when it's the case. That's what we all shoud do.
But you are not one of us, you are the Chair so we have different
expectations. Maybe we shouldn't but then what is really your "job"
over here ?

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote
> > > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the
> "roughness"
> > > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices -
> both
> > > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to
> some
> > > extent the person making a certain argument).
> >
> > I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from
> the
> > WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
> > who is making it and not objectively ?
>
> If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain
> minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very
> loudly that they will oppose the proposal.  It would be very surprising
> to see otherwise.
>
> Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their
> abusive behaviour?  Not very much so.
>
> Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means,
> so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.
>
>
> I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating
> RIPE DB T, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion
> is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible,
> well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than
> yelling...
>
> 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
>

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

[Ciprian Nica]

> Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
> of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
> the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
> extent the person making a certain argument).
>

I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from the
WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on
who is making it and not objectively ?

In my opinion there is no space for any such extent and yes your job should
be to represent an impartial and objective arbitration. Otherwise, I get
the impression you are many times too subjective and try to enforce your
personal opinions on others.

If you can not be impartial and objective it would be only honourable from
you to step down, join us in the debates and let someone else do the job.

But as I've noticed (and nobody cared) you're one of the hoarders of last
/8 so I really don't expect you to do that.

Ciprian

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

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On 19 October 2016 at 12:18, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> [..]
> > What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
> > reasonable counter argument.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been
> > addressed reasonablely.
>
> Thanks for telling me what my job is, I wouldn't have guessed otherwise.
>
> Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness"
> of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both
> the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
> extent the person making a certain argument).
>
> And if I cannot be sure what to make out of a statement, then I can either
> ask for clarity, or just discard as "random noise".
>

Agian, voicing concern is not exact same thing as "opposition", I have a
concern, if it can be addressed well with reasonable conter argument, I
might support.

It's the very defination of the process “reaching consensus".

But again, I think it is not about the policy in discussion, we should stop
here.

I agree with Nick just said, it does not fix the core problem: the large
eonomical difference between
RIPE NCC member fees and market price for IPv4 will permenent exsists,
Ramco said puting a sticker
"not for sale" to decrease its value, it might be true, but the gap in
those two mgiht just be too big(and will be bigger in the future) to close.




> 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
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
[..]
> What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
> reasonable counter argument.

Thanks for the clarification.

> Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been
> addressed reasonablely.

Thanks for telling me what my job is, I wouldn't have guessed otherwise.

Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" 
of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both 
the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some
extent the person making a certain argument).

And if I cannot be sure what to make out of a statement, then I can either
ask for clarity, or just discard as "random noise".

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Lu Heng]

Hi

On 19 October 2016 at 11:48, Gert Doering  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:39:10AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem.
> >
> > Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about
> it
> > anymore?
> >
> > Don't fix something that will no longer exsit in a short time period.
>
> So I take this as "non-support" = "opposition"?
>
> I think it is fairly clear here, but it would be good if people can very
> explicitly state their position, as the to-be-expected large amount of
> e-mail makes summarization very tedious for the chairs otherwise.
>
> Community is consensus based, not vote based.

What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an
reasonable counter argument.

Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been
addressed reasonablely.

But again, I think this is personal so I will not continue this discussion
future.

Let's go back to the policy.


> thanks,
>
> 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
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

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

[Ciprian Nica]

Totally agree with Radu.

-1 for this policy from me too.

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.
>
> Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns
> here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development.
>
> As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would
> take half of a working day to write all them down again).
> As a very quick and incomplete reminder:
>  - "two levels membership" / differentiated services
>  - "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor")
>  - uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is
>  M today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?)
>  - stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply
>  everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud
>  - 
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-August/011700.html
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-June/011565.html
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-June/011548.html
> No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed.
>
> And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas
> in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within
> the ideas of the "establishment".
>
>

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns
here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development.

As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would
take half of a working day to write all them down again).
As a very quick and incomplete reminder: 
 - "two levels membership" / differentiated services
 - "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor")
 - uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is
 M today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?)
 - stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply
 everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud
 - 
 -
 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-August/011700.html
 -
 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011565.html
 -
 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011548.html
No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed.

And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas
in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within
the ideas of the "establishment".

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

[Daniel Baeza]

Hi All,

-1 to this.

I think the current policy that prevents tranfers for 24 months is enough.

Regards,

El 19/10/2016 a las 10:05, Marco Schmidt escribió:

Dear colleagues,

The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down 
the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an impact analysis 
conducted by the RIPE NCC.

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the 
final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to 
the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

-Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of 
company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer 
restriction
-Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 
available pool

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

And the draft documents at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft

We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make your 
proposal evaluation easier.

-Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of 
different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right 
beside the list of proposal versions.
-The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the proposal is 
actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no 
comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is 
expected.

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to 
 before 17 November 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

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

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

[Patrick Velder]

Hi

I still disagree changing the status of already allocated resources.

-1 from me.

Regards
Patrick


On 19.10.2016 10:05, Marco Schmidt wrote:

Dear colleagues,

The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down 
the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an impact analysis 
conducted by the RIPE NCC.

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the 
final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to 
the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

-Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of 
company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer 
restriction
-Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 
available pool

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

And the draft documents at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft

We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make your 
proposal evaluation easier.

-Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of 
different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right 
beside the list of proposal versions.
-The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the proposal is 
actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no 
comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is 
expected.

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to 
 before 17 November 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC

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

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:33:54AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> It is obviously the 99??? of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

It would be so kind of you to actually *READ* the summary I wrote at
the end of the discussion phase.  Or try to understand how the PDP works.

The NCC is not involved in the decision making whether or not a proposal
moves forward - the decision a the end of the discussion phase (which is
what is relevant here) is made by the proposer(!), in agreement with the
WG chairs (Sander and me).

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Sebastian Wiesinger]

* Aleksey Bulgakov  [2016-10-19 10:36]:
> Hi.
> 
> It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

Hi Aleksey,

please read how the PDP works:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642

and stop hinting at some conspiracy. That's bullshit.

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 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

Hi.

It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

19 Окт 2016 г. 11:05 пользователь "Marco Schmidt" 
написал:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03,
> "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an
> impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under
> the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be
> added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
>
> Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
>
> -Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result
> of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer
> restriction
> -Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4
> available pool
>
> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
>
> And the draft documents at:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
>
> We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make
> your proposal evaluation easier.
>
> -Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison
> of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol
> right beside the list of proposal versions.
> -The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the proposal
> is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes
> no comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is
> expected.
>
> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <
> address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>
>