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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 17:17, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> Hi Radu,
> 
> Le 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit :
> > For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just
> > a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".
> 
> IP adresses cannot be sold, it's public domain.
> 
> What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well
> maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.

Jerome,

The problem is the "multiple LIR accounts per member". Of course, it
does arrange some members' business, but it still sounds like "purchase
parts in an investment fund".
OK, that situation is suspended since november, but follow-up on 27/05
(voting results).

One of the ideas behind 2015-05 was to calm down the need for such
practice. Some people do not agree, and some may start considering the
"extra LIR" option as normal.

Not to mention that some people simply do not agree with that and make a
more than decent living out of it.

> Whenever we decide to put a facial value onto adress blocks, we'd get in
> a slipery slope leading to the demise of innovation and competitive
> telecom market (re-read the taxi licence analogy). And it sure won't

Unfortunately we're already on the slippery slope. How far, check here :
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfers/ipv4/ipv4-transfer-statistics
.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

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

[Tom Hill]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 10/05/16 17:17, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> Did you recently got an inetnum ? Nowadays, the minute you get a
> block, you get 10 free e-mails asking to lease a /24 out of it.

This is not the same problem that I was referring to?

It so happens that what you're referencing is also completely
irrelevant to 2015-05, or the IPv4 austerity procedure; you can
happily ignore any business offering to lease your IPs, and even if
you accepted their offer, the IP space would still not be not
allocated to those persons indefinitely.

- -- 
Tom Hill
Network Engineer

Bytemark Hosting
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
tel. +44 1904 890 890
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXMg8SAAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6diUH/0oibUrH0EyCaoAm2AXz/GkU
XWI627oXQbDuOk6IdxHLgzAELuRpQoNS9AjebGFpJZ3nnv+iuxXuuHF8i/Jnt5pr
pjP9Q63bgEHuBX689kAXEwP6KgnMw4rnh3ivCHTOj63JHTJ1YFPGj2ZxPo1FNQMQ
d1rdicWUpaWsdm4xKeALjuUEPFK1kZrZb+hjRCgjrjGnr84htzufOn0gOS//Mswm
EuFi3kAmqqaoYQcOzIsmIod+YOUhah1+arsSFsdh1LM8b1cyuh/o8CTpg+gURAyh
VkAlcBpOUOEJR+ePEE+2LuxWqgWOtMgoHwa+UW2whOtjTcdC84lF3XXRwqHG6oo=
=keoH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[Jérôme Nicolle]

Hello Tom,

Le 10/05/2016 17:51, Tom Hill a écrit :
> Are there any figures to back up the assertion that "crooks" are
> eating away at 185/8? I don't think I've ever seen any concrete
> evidence of a widespread problem as yet.

Did you recently got an inetnum ? Nowadays, the minute you get a block,
you get 10 free e-mails asking to lease a /24 out of it.

When your business is growing and your network is running off address
space' vapors, you're looking out for any oportunity to recover unused
adresses (really easy to do when you only got a mere /22 : usually
none). Then turn to the "Transfer (Blackmarket) Listing Service" and get
indecent (side) offers for newly assigned prefixes put up for rent.

I don't need numbers to see there's something wrong : a market for
adress space must NOT exist. The listing service must be dismantled, and
no one should be able to profit from wrongly privatised public domain,
period.

Unused inetnums must return to pool, and LIR's able to justify their
needs _periodicaly_ should be able to get some more juice off the
available pool, if they're also contributing to getting us all out of
this mess by actively promoting IPv6.

Or am I a bit too commie for this discussion ?

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Tom Hill]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 10/05/16 13:12, Aled Morris wrote:
> I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain
> IPv4 address space.

I've still never seen any figures to support this, and thus it sounds
like FUD to justify some sort of IPv4 ransacking policy each and every
time I hear it.

Are there any figures to back up the assertion that "crooks" are
eating away at 185/8? I don't think I've ever seen any concrete
evidence of a widespread problem as yet.

It occurs to me that there will always be bad actors as long as we
desire the freedom to be able to acquire companies with Memberships
and pay only one set of Membership fees. I'm not actually sure if
abuse of this system should a problem for the RIPE community, the RIPE
NCC, or indeed a problem for the relevant authorities to investigate
(i.e. fraud).

Despite the possibility for abuse, I so far remain convinced that it's
worth keeping 185/8 as a reserved range for new entrants, and indeed
keeping any address space returned from the IANA for as long as we can
to - hopefully - help continue that policy long into the future.

There's nothing in 2015-05 that I find agreeable in this context,
particularly if we discount the assertion that abuse of the /8 policy
is harming depletion in a meaningful fashion.


(P.S. Not to point fingers at you directly, Aled; you're just the last
person to mention it in the thread before it changed direction.)

- -- 
Tom Hill
Network Engineer

Bytemark Hosting
http://www.bytemark.co.uk/
tel. +44 1904 890 890
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXMgN7AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6vPAIANOay9s+6KIDi8Tb0fhFedXe
5VcBB10PF9r49jSAcidwKSQ5bJJbqJd/VzIrZMnevPNQw8FZfX+xOlpsebMx4Ezt
bfxzGJTO5JZ/ghc4PtCDbvj317dVy6rCftciylpmzHfMEzzpHHC1323NyWHf9/Hp
1EN2Hdjtsz+BVMGHOPfKHIpOAzyeCdXQ1e7HBsGKDhStzM0ygJrXtwBib3BiApc8
KNwyJFGY8Wb39Llb9w5PypXb5L51W71Or6kApcZvhkmTuo25aVS5Tvg/F5eIJ042
EEDdzgkLvN04jJdSZdYNW3VavoPQ1MGx+gtith6JF0YxlKkom2Wccb+QSgh/wcI=
=7Yd2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[Aled Morris]

On 10 May 2016 at 16:17, Jérôme Nicolle  wrote:

> What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well
> maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.
>

My bad, I should have said RIPE could "licence" or "mark as registered" the
/22 address block not "sell".

There is a recurring fee for PI space which I would assume would apply in
this case, and the company obtaining the /22 would also have to find a
sponsor LIR for their assignment.

But again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, just pointing out that
having a growing number of "fake" members, especially ones who do not share
in any way with the ideals and goals of RIPE, could be bad for RIPE as an
organisation in the long term.

Aled

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
> > I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4
> > address space.
> > 
> > Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same
> > price as membership (???3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who
> > wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
> > 
> > It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those
> > actually committed to performing as LIRs.
> 
> Great idea !
> I would actually like to have NCC's opinion on that one.  
> For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just
> a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".

This is a horrible idea, tbh.

The RIPE NCC is a *membership* organization, so "sell off stuff" is totally 
not in line with the NCC's mission of providing numbers to members.

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] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

[Jérôme Nicolle]

Hi Radu,

Le 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit :
> For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just
> a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".

IP adresses cannot be sold, it's public domain.

What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well
maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.

Whenever we decide to put a facial value onto adress blocks, we'd get in
a slipery slope leading to the demise of innovation and competitive
telecom market (re-read the taxi licence analogy). And it sure won't
help to deploy IPv6 anyway, because incumbents will then be urged to
slow its deployment in order to preserve their (now valued) advantage.

Best regards,

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle

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

[Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN]

On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:16, Peter Hessler wrote:
> This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off
> some years ago.

Yes, except that the need for "provider independent" IP blocks did not
disappear. Only the "ASSIGNED PI" status for new blocks did. The
"ALLOCATED PA" is a good enough substitute for those needing it.
Then there's still the "multihome with ASSIGNED PA phenomenon" and the
"don't need multihoming, just a /24" (actually anything from /23 to /26
may qualify). For the second one, if done by the LIR it may actually
decrease the depletion rate (saving months lost with extra allocations). 

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

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

[Carsten Schiefner]

Hi Aled,

On 10.05.2016 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
> I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4
> address space.
> 
> Perhaps (shields up!)

that might in fact be a good idea, yes... ;-)

> RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the
> same price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to
> anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
> 
> It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those
> actually committed to performing as LIRs.

This would actually be PI space then.

Apart from this, I'd rather like to have them *WITHIN* the RIPE NCC as a
legal entity under Dutch law than somewhere *OUTSIDE*, free floating
around and at best only loosely coupled to the RIPE NCC by some T

My $0.02 - best

-C.

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

[Jim Reid]

> On 10 May 2016, at 13:16, Peter Hessler  wrote:
> 
> This was called "Provider Independent"

No it wasn’t. RIPE NCC has never sold IP addresses of any sort.

LIRs pay membership fees to the NCC. In return they get certain services. One 
of those services is allocation of globally unique numbering resources.

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

[Peter Hessler]

This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off
some years ago.

You can still get PI IPv6 space, however.


On 2016 May 10 (Tue) at 13:12:58 +0100 (+0100), Aled Morris wrote:
:I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address
:space.
:
:Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same
:price as membership (???3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who
:wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
:
:It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those
:actually committed to performing as LIRs.
:
:I can't imagine this will be a popular suggestion, I'm just putting it out
:there.
:
:Aled

-- 
WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL:

Firings will continue until morale improves.

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

[Aled Morris]

I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address
space.

Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same
price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who
wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.

It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those
actually committed to performing as LIRs.

I can't imagine this will be a popular suggestion, I'm just putting it out
there.

Aled

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

[Jérôme Nicolle]

Hello Roger,

Le 10/05/2016 08:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
> The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to
> regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's
> find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger
> company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's
> say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC?

According to RIPE-654, two seperate process remains : one is for mergers
/ acquisition, the other is for other ressource transfers.

I think that baring transfers of such blocks will only raise market's
price for prefixes and move the market from adresses to entire LIRs.
Therefore it looks unnecessary to me.

Clocking a mere 56 adresses per months is kinda slow farming process,
but still, it would encourage some crooks to create empty shells, set it
as LIR, farm a /20, and sell control (or ownership) of that shell.

Also, a fast growing new comer could have a need for additionnal /22s
faster than the proposed timing provides. Remember we're far from that
marvelous time where customer will drop IPv4 only services and devices
anyway.

Therefore, allocation of additionnal prefixes, whilst limited to a /20
per LIR, should be *justification-based*, not time-based.

I get that /20 is still not enough for some cases, but it looks like the
max size we can afford, should be enough for a last-resort CGN, and will
prevent some crooks from operating profitably.

Best regards,

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle

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

[Roger Jørgensen]

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

hello and welcome :-)



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

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



-- 

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

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

[Riccardo Gori]

Hi Martin,


Il 09/05/2016 14:07, Martin Huněk ha scritto:

Hello,

I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does
not cover all cases of cheating the system.

You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address
space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for
2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new
one.

The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little
bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor
change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from
pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving
LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool.
That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you
would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR
region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.
You are right but and this in this case we have to consider that RIPE 
NCC cannot deal with any kind of business process inside companies or 
natural persons
The only thing RIPE NCC can do is to check is the process is legitima 
and documented and it's very difficoult to discuss documents

provider by thir parties around the world with any kind of different law


Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might
reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs
pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to
monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20.

Sincerely

Martin Hunek
Freenet Liberec, z.s.


regards
Riccardo
--

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

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


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

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

[Martin Huněk]

Hello,

I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.

In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does 
not cover all cases of cheating the system.

You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address 
space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for 
2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new 
one.

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

Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might 
reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs 
pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to 
monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20.

Sincerely

Martin Hunek
Freenet Liberec, z.s.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.