Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
I support this proposal +1 This will hopefully stop some of the short term golddigging in the the dying ipv4 world. Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.sehttps://webmail.ip-only.net/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx 11 maj 2015 kl. 15:32 skrev herve.clem...@orange.commailto:herve.clem...@orange.com: +1 -Message d'origine- De : address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de Andre Keller Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2015 15:31 À : address-policy-wg@ripe.netmailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.netmailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Only people who would object are those who wana exploit the system! If i did this in 1995 i would be loaded! I still have my 'rose tinted glasses on' Feeling old! RIPE.. this needs to stop! Danial Subhani Pro-Net Internet Services Ltd div Original message /divdivFrom: Jan Ingvoldstad frett...@gmail.com /divdivDate:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00) /divdivTo: RIPE Address Policy WG address-policy-wg@ripe.net /divdivSubject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published /divdiv /divOn Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to Discussion or Withdraw after Review phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB --show-version x output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the 30x /22 fast-transferred issue look fairly marginal. (And please DO NOT top-post, quoting a full mailing list digest underneath - *this* is something which might get the chair slightly angry) 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 pgpoV562ViJ6e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is individual having an interest not corporations being part of a commercial structure. the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community, whether LIR, enterprise, or 15 year old with a modem (he has probably upgraded since i last used him as an example). the internet is for everyone, and policy decisions should be open to input from everyone. of course, this does not include sock puppets. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Dear All, On 10/6/15 10:50, Lu Heng wrote: And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). Please let me try to clarify this. This is the process that was followed in the period between October 2007 and September 2012: Requests for PA allocations equal to or larger than a /15 would go through an escalation process. In this case, the documentation would be reviewed and evaluated by a second IP Resource Analyst (IPRA). Once both IPRAs were satisfied with the documentation provided, their findings were reviewed by the Registration Services (RS) Manager (to confirm that the evaluation was carried out according to Registration Services procedures) and the Policy Development Officer (to confirm that the request was in compliance with RIPE policies). Once the RS Manager and the Policy Development Officer were satisfied with the documentation provided, the request would be escalated to two Senior Managers, who would check that all processes were followed correctly. I hope this clarifies. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Ciprian: Your Email are full of false claim and accusation, none of them making sense as well as speaking from your knowledge, all of them are from your speculation, please verify your data before you post anything, and please stop post any of the personal information here any more. I will kindly ask chair again to stop such discussion about me and my company. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk wrote: Hi, On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: Abuse is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ? Previous abuse, where is your support for such accusation? The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. % Version 1 of object 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 % You can use --list-versions to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum:5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 netname:NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 descr: Heng Lu trading as OutsideHeaven country:NL org:ORG-HLta1-RIPE admin-c:OHS18-RIPE tech-c: OHS18-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: OH-MNT mnt-domains:OH-MNT mnt-routes: OVH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered 5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week later there were no more IPs left. OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be relevant anyway. It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only support my opposition to this proposal. Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal. I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had the largest IPv6 deployment at that time. Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common knowledge. And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business. Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. You are accusing me abuse, please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple opinion. in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody was using it on this list. Well, people can kill people does not justify you can do the same, as it is about me this time and I personally really not happy about this, so I will do possible things to stop such unlawful activity about us. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Ciprian, Lu, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: [..] I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has been said (and is publically available in the transfer statistics anyway), while going into personal motives and attacks is uncalled for and not relevant for the proposal. So please take it to private mail. 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 pgpockpYkNwxw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the 30x /22 fast-transferred issue look fairly marginal. It is, however, not relevant to the 2015-01 discussion as that is solely about a loop-hole in the last /8 policy. Also it is used to impugn motives of participants and if that is ok now, I might have a thing or two to say as well... rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly). Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them. I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because it's the last day or because you never spoke here before, which is was has been done here by some people. I'm not some people :-) Also, to deal with the concerns is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with. This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is reasonable is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science. My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example. I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track discussions. Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present his findings. [..] I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h period to vote... No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list. (For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote) 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 pgp322D3Pieq4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: Abuse is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ? The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. % Version 1 of object 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 % You can use --list-versions to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum:5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 netname:NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 descr: Heng Lu trading as OutsideHeaven country:NL org:ORG-HLta1-RIPE admin-c:OHS18-RIPE tech-c: OHS18-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: OH-MNT mnt-domains:OH-MNT mnt-routes: OVH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered 5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week later there were no more IPs left. It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only support my opposition to this proposal. However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal. I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had the largest IPv6 deployment at that time. And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business. Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. You are accusing me abuse, please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple opinion. in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody was using it on this list. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this: Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. If there are any questions do please let me know. Regards, David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false. I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I should have said the guys from the top floor. More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them. well said. this is why we have humans for deciding these things and why i continue to support you and sander as co-chairs. thank you. randy
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote - really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, they are the ones telling the RIPE NCC how to act (at least that's my understanding - RIPE NCC works FOR RIPE, RIPE which is made of members of EQUAL rights and obligations). Of course, on the mailing lists ANYONE can intervene, and point out concerns, modifications, etc, and based on what is discussed there, the RIPE members vote. How to get them to vote - that is a totally different question - in Holland as far as I know, voting is COMPULSORY, and you face a penalty if you don't vote - I'm not saying to do something like this, but methods can be found. Also, I can agree there should be a minimum quorum, so that it doesn't happen that only 10 members vote and decide for hundreds of others. A 30% minimum votes I think is feasible. Vote rigging? Really? How do you come to that conclusion? It's not like we are in the US congress and have lobbists who push/bribe/bring illegal voters to get their way ... come on... What is reasonable is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science. I totally agree it's not an exact science, but the (two) deciders who basically have the final word, should be 100% neutral. As somebody else mentioned, you leave the impression of beeing biased to this exact policy. I'm not some people :-) - you were not the only one implying that people who never spoke up before don't have the same weight in this decision. I don't want to point fingers, it is nothing personal. Again, please understand that I agree with most of your affirmations. I also fully agree that a policy should be put in place to avoid abuse of the last /8 (the RIPE NCC does not see it as an abuse, I reiterate this, and also does not see this policy as having a real impact), but this policy does not do that. In my opinion, other mechanisms should be enforced - for example, what procentage of the /22s allocated are beeing announced? Just that the LIR was not closed, it does not mean the /22 was not hoarded. Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: ma...@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -Original Message- From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 14:03 To: Storch Matei Cc: Gert Doering; Vladimir Andreev; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly). Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send -1s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them. I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because it's the last day or because you never spoke here before, which is was has been done here by some people. I'm not some people :-) Also, to deal with the concerns is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with. This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is reasonable is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science. My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example. I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:38:02PM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote - really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, RIPE NCC Members vote on RIPE NCC business issues. RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is individual having an interest not corporations being part of a commercial structure. The RIPE NCC acts as a secretariat, implementing the policy made by the RIPE community. There is an important distinction here. 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 pgpAc2Whj9Eeg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Lu, On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote: Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse. Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time the allocations were made to you as a natural person. My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. You are accusing me abuse, please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this: Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. If there are any questions do please let me know. Regards, David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? Yours, Ciprian Nica
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi See my reply below: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk wrote: Hi Lu, On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote: Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse. Abuse is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time the allocations were made to you as a natural person. The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes. However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal. And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business. You are accusing me abuse, please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple opinion. in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this: Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. If there are any questions do please let me know. Regards, David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false. More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, Gert, sorry but I don't want to leave things unclear so I'll send this one last reply to Lu. Please don't take into consideration any discussions related to this issue when analyzing the 2015-01 approval. It is off-topic but I think it shows a problem that needs to be understood and maybe addressed. Previous abuse, where is your support for such accusation? In my opinion based on the facts that I already mention this can be called an abuse much more than what the 2 russians have done. OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be relevant anyway. No, as anyone can read OutsideHeaven is YOUR trade name. Maybe today you have a corporation but on that time it was you (the person) trading as some brand. Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common knowledge. It was just a supporting argument. Of course the main ones were that it was a very large ISP with huge growth, millions of customers, thousands of employees. Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests). Ciprian
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self. I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list, ever again. I didn't mention your name, it was an example. Like you there are others. I just showed the IPs which, after you sold them, are registered to someone else so it would not have been that obvious that you are behind them until you came up and took it presonally. My intent was to point the finger at the situation and not at you. Like we are analyzing the situation with the last /22s and not Mr. Bulgakov or Quicksoft. Ciprian
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
* r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]: Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. -1We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not important and not against other members or people. The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help people and companies. So you will get opposite result. In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours later we have today database update and can show fresh information. Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. ** *Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 http://37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 http://5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 http://5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out formillions. This single example did more damage than all the hoarders ofthe last /8. Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands.* My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then bribe people. You are accusing me abuse, please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, address-policy-wg-requ...@ripe.net wrote: Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-requ...@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-ow...@ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Carsten Schiefner) 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Ciprian Nica) 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document andImpact AnalysisPublished (LIR (BIT I 5)) 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Mikael Abrahamsson) 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 From: Carsten Schiefner ripe-wgs...@schiefner.de To: Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: 5577d79c.7020...@schiefner.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Dear Vladimir, On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote: You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. first of all, I am not angry. I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these see-through non-arguments. Secondly: the tagging of your idea as fair
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Dear AP WG, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. [..] We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. The review phase for this proposal is now over. Sander and I will now go over the long and intense discussion you had, try to filter out the content that is actually relevant to the proposal at hand, and then post the usual summary and a conclusion regarding consensus or not. I think all arguments have been heard and answered now - so please leave it to the chairs to sift through the heap and come to a conclusion. In other words: you can stop the shouting now. 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 pgp0qHFK1oCoF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! You are against ripe members? Not speakeing anout 185.x right now. Its globaly. Why to make it harder? The policy you try to applay will not help you goal. You should assist and try to help people to get ips that they need for business if ripe have them with some faer puporse. Current ip ranges are very small and may not care on big owners who use lot of ip networs like /16 /15 and etc. Ripe should take more care on database and better take back ips that were get from ripe somehow with strange puporses. I dont see any good idea here. It will even not help one companies to help other companies to arrange needed ip amount. If you think you should resist ip redistrebution and interfere geting ips legaly from ripe may be better lets stop IP distribution at all and close ripe? Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. Ever if you read the propousal puporse you will undersnand that it will not help, even if it happen nothing strange will happen. But the result that will be published later will confirm that you where wrong. Please give some days for discussion if that possible. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung Исходное сообщение От: Sebastian Wiesinger sebast...@karotte.org Дата: 10.06.2015 16:12 (GMT+02:00) Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published * r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]: Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. -1We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not important and not against other members or people. The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help people and companies. So you will get opposite result. In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours later we have today database update and can show fresh information. Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... 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
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:27PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: divHi!/divdiv /divdivAccording to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to Discussion or Withdraw after Review phase./divdiv Yes, this is true, and we do that if the chairs come to the conclusion that there is not enough support for the proposal as it stands. Since we (*) have not yet come to a conclusion, it is too early to say whether the proposal will proceed to Last Call or enter another round of Review phase. (*): in this case, Sander will do it, and I will abstain, to make sure neutrality is given - I *did* read the comments that I got involved too much, and thus avoid potential arguments around that. 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 pgpwVFhvGbPbV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru wrote: Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. ... Please give some days for discussion if that possible. You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/000444.html Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. 10.06.2015, 18:59, "Jan Ingvoldstad" frett...@gmail.com:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, r...@ntx.ru r...@ntx.ru wrote:Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. ... Please give some days for discussion if that possible. You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/000444.html Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry.-- Jan -- With best regards, Vladimir AndreevGeneral director, QuickSoft LLCTel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev vladi...@quick-soft.net wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to Discussion or Withdraw after Review phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 04:38:44PM +0300, r...@ntx.ru wrote: Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! We are not. This proposal will not change the amount of addresses a new LIR can get or the actions required to get there in any way. What it does is making it harder to sell them away right afterwards, but this is quite a difference. [..] Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. Totally correct, and this is not changed. 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 pgpyAc8ik7HHK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
I support Aleksey's opinion (NOT this proposal). Why address -policy -wg doesn't tell anything about little influence of transfers on the system? 11:23, 9 июня 2015 г., Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com:-1 I cannot support this proposal. There were the calculation was showing little part of transfers from the last /8. Also this proposal doesn't close multiple accounts 09 Июн 2015 г. 11:01 пользователь "Riccardo Gori" rg...@wirem.net написал: Support +1 regards Riccardo Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rg...@wirem.net part1.04050103.07050...@wirem.net -- Отправлено из мобильного приложения Яндекс.Почты
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. Support +1 Erik Bais
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hallo! I fully support this proposal. regards, Thomas schrieb Marco Schmidt am 11.05.2015 13:43: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Guten Tag, Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, Storch Matei ma...@profisol.ro: Hi, I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the one /22 limit, they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in) Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a change of the rules during the game and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. Regards, Garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a change of the rules during the game and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Thank you, Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: ma...@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Guten Tag, I opposite this proposal. It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ... Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding) Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... Regards, Garry -- Garry Glendown * Professional Services Solutions NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glend...@nethinks.com Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Arash, This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred. The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
I think Arash is speaking about possibility to receive multiple /22's and use it for own purposes. 09.06.2015, 10:19, Erik Bais e...@bais.name: Hi Arash, This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred. The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com [2015-06-09 15:27]: Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer statistics. The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
You're right, I meant we from AS20783. I thought this was clear. -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: Don't generalize please. We don't really mean all. 09.06.2015, 16:26, Gerald K. ger...@ax.tc: After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Gert, Maybe my message was a little too extensive. I was in the room in London when the subject was discussed and I remember all the details. What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the community will benefit from it or some small group of people. To summarize the effects will be : - higher membership fees - higher IPv4 prices on the market What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? There are many problems, issues, reasons, for anyone to sustain or be against this policy but setting all aside, let's just focus on the benefits of adopting this policy. Is anyone convinced that it will bring a positive effect to the RIPE community ? That's whom the policies should serve. We have another saying in Romania don't sell the bear's skin while he's in the forrest, so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to preserve them, but that's in the past. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 6:40 PM, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions. Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something he came up with to increase his profits. Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never happened. The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the last /8 policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive. (So the argument let's burn IPv4 and be done with it! is also outside the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) Gert Doering -- APWG chair
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote: I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 Actually, I call this worse than spam as it not only spams, it misrepresents which mechanism the mail has been sent through on purpose. It was an outright lie. When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation. I could not agree more. I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on this and other RIPE mailing lists? Richard
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on this and other RIPE mailing lists? Only on very exceptional circumstances. Like, sustained personal attacks and not stopping when the chair calls to order. In general, a consensus based process living on an *open and publically archived mailing list* needs to be open to all interested parties - but at the same time, I think the openness works in our favour, as in many cases, people's actions very much speak for themselves... 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 pgpLABI3A_ovg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi! thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. In my opinion it's absolutely right and current matter should be submitted for common voting. It's important to do this way because: 1) The proposal offer important change to IPv4 policy; 2) The proposal potentially affects many LIR's; 3) Only a small part of LIR's participate in present discussion; So I think the only way to make fair decision is to ask all LIR's regarding their opinion. 09.06.2015, 17:28, Storch Matei ma...@profisol.ro: Guten Tag Garry, I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low). Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: ma...@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Guten Tag, Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, Storch Matei ma...@profisol.ro: Hi, I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the one /22 limit, they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in) Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a change of the rules during the game and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. Regards, Garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com [2015-06-09 16:24]: The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. Sure, because back then we still had IPv4. Do you also complain because people could get gasoline much cheaper 10 years ago? Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case? No, I call it spam when you send mails advertising unused, absolutely clean /22 to mail addresses only used for notifications in the RIPE database. You know what, why don't you come over to the anti-abuse mailinglist and join the discussion. I'm sure people will be delighted. 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case? 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 -- -- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Aleksey Bulgakov Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case? I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 I suppose I should thank you for rousing me into supporting this proposal. When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation. Neat trick to spoof the ncc-announce list's subject tag, btw. Clever. Tore
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:30:09PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: Don't generalize please. We don't really mean all. I'm well able to understand that Gerald isn't speaking for you, no need to point that out. 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 pgp9Na87ni9ru.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions. Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something he came up with to increase his profits. Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never happened. The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the last /8 policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive. (So the argument let's burn IPv4 and be done with it! is also outside the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) 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 pgpHYqKzN_VRh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
*will be able to 2015-06-09 17:21 GMT+03:00 Aleksey Bulgakov aleksbulga...@gmail.com: The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case? 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 -- -- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 -- -- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:19:40PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: (FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the AA policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would lessen confusion and make changes easier) This, actually, is work in progress. Expect a new proposal from Erik Bais soon. (Would you object to that as well, as it *also* modifies the existing address allocation and assignment policy documents?) 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 pgp8warRdCwMj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: You spoke that some russians make profit and don't speak about other nations. Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the hoarding so it would probably grow a little more than without this. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call hoarding what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--+--+ | seller | /22s | +--+--+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as Adjenet Networks | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--+--+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
You spoke that some russians make profit and don't speak about other nations. Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the hoarding so it would probably grow a little more than without this. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call hoarding what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--+--+ | seller | /22s | +--+--+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as Adjenet Networks | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--+--+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
rotten apples Such words regards to unknown person says a lot about you. Quite a lot. I consider it below my dignity to continue the dialogue with you. 09.06.2015, 19:55, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: You spoke that some russians make profit and don't speak about other nations. Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the hoarding so it would probably grow a little more than without this. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call hoarding what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--+--+ | seller | /22s | +--+--+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as Adjenet Networks | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--+--+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Jump Management is a legit business and I'm pround to say I represented them in many transactions. They didn't hoard the last /8 and more importantly they didn't hoard the pre-last /8, so please don't bring them into discussion Maybe at the next RIPE meeting I'll prepare an accurate presentation of his business as it's probably unique around the world. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:42 PM, Petr Umelov wrote: But you forgot Jump Management SRL, who has made Attantion 1149 transfers and there were blocks more than /22. Yes, they aren't from the last /8, but may be RIPE will start to return unused blocks (during a year e.g.)? It will be more effectively. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the hoarding so it would probably grow a little more than without this. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call hoarding what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--+--+ | seller | /22s | +--+--+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as Adjenet Networks | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--+--+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection. So we can't say exactly there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? 09.06.2015, 18:58, Gert Doering g...@space.net: Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the last /8 policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive. Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. So what is this proposal about? The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible. With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection. But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded away: let's keep it that way. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: 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 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: We have another saying in Romania don't sell the bear's skin while he's in the forrest, so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to preserve them, but that's in the past. Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would hit the wall. IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled), but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than they would like to have. And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8 policy. This proposal helps achieve that goal. 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 pgp2Haj5VPZwM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. +1 Cheers, Tim
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a): I saw a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis of the policy effects. Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees - increase IPv4 address prices - help the last /8 pool become even larger Hello, the most important impact of the policy in my opinion is that is will make life harder for LIRs that are not really going to make assignments from the allocation although they confirmed they will do so prior receiving it. (ripe-643 5.1 par. 3) This is clearly abusing of the existing policy. As most assignments will last for more than two years, there is no real danger for legitimate LIRs that are being set up in order to start some Internet business (or even expand it beyond 1024 IPv4s if the IPv6 development still goes slower than it should) Therefore, I support 2015-01. -- Ondřej Caletka smime.p7s Description: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. Ciprian Nica On 6/9/2015 9:01 PM, Ondřej Caletka wrote: Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a): I saw a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis of the policy effects. Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees - increase IPv4 address prices - help the last /8 pool become even larger Hello, the most important impact of the policy in my opinion is that is will make life harder for LIRs that are not really going to make assignments from the allocation although they confirmed they will do so prior receiving it. (ripe-643 5.1 par. 3) This is clearly abusing of the existing policy. As most assignments will last for more than two years, there is no real danger for legitimate LIRs that are being set up in order to start some Internet business (or even expand it beyond 1024 IPv4s if the IPv6 development still goes slower than it should) Therefore, I support 2015-01. -- Ondřej Caletka
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Garry, On 6/9/2015 8:22 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: Hi, Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by abusing the policy to limit IPv4 usage will be incentivised NOT to keep opening LIRs and by that not bring additional income to RIPE? I doubt that not gaining from hoarders will increase cost for RIPE and therefore its members ... last time I checked, RIPE's income was rather stable and usually well on the black side ... why do you believe this policy change will alter that? It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee. I think it can be considered a hoarding tax which at this moment seems quite considerable when compared to the profit of the hoarder. We all benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established. - increase IPv4 address prices ... but only for companies unwilling to get bye with what they have and push IPv6 deployment and growth ... of course this may put some strain to newcomers, but imagine the strain on newcomers if they can't receive ANY IPv4 from RIRs anymore because hoarders have ensured that RIRs don't have any available anymore, thus requiring them to get their required IPv4 address on the market for even higher prices ... I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the world, long time before the exhaustion. It's not that easy to achieve full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of IPv4 resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give up on IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't exclude the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments and their problems. - help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a last /8 pool that would just keep growing forever. An additional /22 you give out today because you don't see a problem TODAY can't just be recovered tomorrow when a new LIR needs a /22 and you don't have any available anymore ... that's why the community HAS to think of tomorrow's problems instead of just living in the today! All IPs that are bought today cost money and I'm sure everyone that gets them, needs them. It's not like in the past when you could get a /12 for free. Therefore I would try to help those that need today IPs and not those that keep them waiting for the price to grow. of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. With the growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, prices will go up, making even the currently discussed policy change unsuited to keep people from gaming the system ... at current rate, the cost for a /22 network through LIR registration is roughly at 2€/IP. The policy change raises that to 4€ ... what if you can get 10€/IP? 150% profit for a /22 is a pretty convincing business model ... Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk wrote: We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. Solving the problem 100% and perfectly is utopia. This is one step in the right direction, and as we are discussing how to ensure both some fairness and predictability, there will be more steps. So instead of fighting every single step along the way, please help us move along. -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, Opteamax GmbH wrote: [...] Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. Without speaking for or against the policy, I'd like to point out that there definitely are cases where unique addresses are required, despite not announcing the route to all of autonomous systems. There are plenty of RFCs explaining why. It should also be obvious that even if 50 /8s were recovered they would not be enough to meet demand. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and more than half do not yet have Internet access. IPv4 is not a sustainable resource. Regards, Leo Vegoda
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem -1 to this proposal
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Guten Tag, Hi Garry, It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee. I think it can be considered a hoarding tax which at this moment seems quite considerable when compared to the profit of the hoarder. We all benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established. I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the world, long time before the exhaustion. It's not that easy to achieve full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of IPv4 resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give up on IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't exclude the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments and their problems. .. just as there have been problems for early ISPs on IPv4 ... what's the relevance of that in this context? It's hard to deploy v6, so we need to stick to v4! ??? - help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 deployment. Good. So what do you believe would happen if all RIRs dropped IPv4 conservation policies tomorrow. Let's say the impeding doom of no IPv4 addresses available would push everybody to ask for additional addresses, causing all addresses being used up by December 31st. Do you believe that all ISPs _AND_USERS_ would be v6-ready by that date? Or Dec 31st 2016? What about 2017? Personally, I reckon if we all (all ISPs, all users, all IoT devices) made a migration by 2020 I'd be really surprised ... Sure, impending doom (IPv4 runout) might speed migration up to a certain degree, but corporations move slow. Heck, we still have analog modem dial-ups in certain (many?) parts of the world. Do you really believe the Internet can get around without using v4 any time soon? And that's the whole point of the policy - ensuring that new entries to the market - be it ISPs or companies - are still able to receive at least a basic set of v4 addresses for foreseeable time, otherwise they will need to find someone willing to sell them addresses, most likely at some inflated prices ... RIR's policies are the one thing that keeps prices DOWN, because legitimate use has a calculable pricetag and does not rely on free market ... Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go away. -garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: - help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 deployment. As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think it's usefull to elaborate on that. Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go away. Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of previous policies. I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
As said many-many times /22 reselling from last /8 is not significant. I really tired to repeat this. And It's objective view. You (and anybody else) can calculate all digest which were brought and make sure it's really so. But I hear again and again that we should stop abusing, it's not intend of last /8 policy etc WITHOUT real arguments. It will be better to start from owners of really big (and unused) blocks which were allocated by RIPE NCC to such owners before last /8. 09.06.2015, 23:32, Gert Doering g...@space.net: Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:07:59PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection. So we can't say exactly there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? We see behaviour that is unwanted, and is violating the expressed spirit of the last /8 policy. And your own numbers nicely demonstrated that this is growing quite fast. So, thanks for making the point that this policy is indeed necessary. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: 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 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: Guten Tag, We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be available anymore ... -garry
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, If RIPE would enforce (just like with asn) the announcement of received /22s within a period of 1-2 months after the allocation, hoarding would be stopped. The sellers would not be able to advertise them as brand new never used, as this detail gives them the most of their value. Also, reinforcing the need of justification for requesting the /22, would slow the hoarders, as they would need to come up with (verifyable) justification. There were lots of valid points against this policy, because it does not address the real problem, and moreso, RIPE NCC directly said that in their opinion it will have no effect over the small hoarding that is going on now. Please read the RIPE NCC impact analysis and you will see this. Matei Storch Profisol Telecom 0728.555.004 On 9 iun. 2015, at 23:18, Marius Catrangiu catrangiumar...@gmail.com wrote: I fully support this (mail from opteamax gmbh) point of view! and, of course the policy proposal. In my opinion it's a bad thing that RIPE did not have strong (backed up with strong detection of unused pools) policies even from the start. Thinks are very complicated and i get that, problems can't be foreseen in future and it's easy to judge now how thins could be made easier/simpler but it's not late to start somewhere. Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump Management) too. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH r...@opteamax.de wrote: On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote: Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and I'll fully support it. The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool. The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real merge of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal would actually remove a lot of profit-making for brokers etc. on one hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is not being really used for a while. Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. ... and we discuss about /22 nets being hoarded? Sorry, could not resist to point on that. Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and raises the risk that the now hoarded addresses are less worth when they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. Best regards -- Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 -- Catrangiu Marius Mobil: 0770481857 Mail: catrangiumar...@gmail.com
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote: Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and I'll fully support it. The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool. The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real merge of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal would actually remove a lot of profit-making for brokers etc. on one hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is not being really used for a while. Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. ... and we discuss about /22 nets being hoarded? Sorry, could not resist to point on that. Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and raises the risk that the now hoarded addresses are less worth when they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. Best regards -- Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: j...@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +, Borhan Habibi wrote: I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem -1 to this proposal I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG list before, voicing -1 without any more specific reasoning. Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your friends to post a -1. Come up with arguments. 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 pgpCGnAfzfCQs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 09/06/2015 12:15, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion. not really, no. RIPE NCC assigned number resources were and are assigned on the basis of the resource holder adhering to RIPE policy. Policy changes which apply retroactively to existing number resources have been made in the past, notably 2007-01. I.e. this policy change doesn't set a precedent. Nick
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Support +1 here too. -- Mick O'Donovan | Network Engineer | BT Ireland | Website: http://www.btireland.net Looking Glass: http://lg.as2110.net Peering Record: http://as2110.peeringdb.com AS-SET Macro: AS-BTIRE | ASN: 2110 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net [2015-06-09 13:18]: Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a change of the rules during the game and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion. This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects. It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet happend* can not be affected ex post facto. What you're postulating is something like I should not have to go to jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born. No, you will go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So stop doing it and you're fine. 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: -1 to this proposal. Why? Disagreeing without giving a reason makes it impossible to address your concerns - and since we're not voting but building consensus, this is not overly helpful. 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 pgp2uDS4d6IN5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi, This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred. Regards, Arash Naderpour -Original Message- From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:51 AM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: -1 to this proposal. Why? Disagreeing without giving a reason makes it impossible to address your concerns - and since we're not voting but building consensus, this is not overly helpful. 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hello, I support this proposal. Regards, Daniel On 11.5.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
* Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net [2015-05-11 13:48]: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. Let's do this. The proposal will prevent a lot of what is going on today especially with the MA changes that the executive board did come up with. Everyone can see the allocation numbers in the RIPE Labs article. The number of LIRs closed on member request in 2014 is as high as the *whole* amount of LIRs closed in the years before. The amount of LIRs closed in 2014 as a whole more than doubled from 2013. This abuse of the last-/8 policy is only going to get worse and I think it will accelerate in speed. We can always extend the policy to close other loopholes later if they come up. But right now I think we should stop this behaviour ASAP. This counts as support. 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] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Sasha, A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the spirit of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the spirit either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary. So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a /22 with the intent to sell it is reasonable. The policy actually says that The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51. This is not the case if the intent is to sell the prefix. Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Daniel, Thanks for your questions. The proposal would only put into place a 24 month holding period for allocations that were made by the RIPE NCC. For allocations that are transferred between LIRs, an identical (24 month) holding period already exists. It has already been mentioned on the mailing list, but I would like to confirm that the RIPE NCC would not revert any previous transfers if the proposal is accepted. But for all new transfer requests, the RIPE NCC would check that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was originally made. I hope this helps. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 11/05/15 19:29, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: Hi El 11/05/2015 a las 19:25, Andre Keller escribió: Hi, On 11.05.2015 19:15, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: It will be retroactive? How this will be handled? If my interpretation of the IA is correct, the retroactive part is restricted to evaluation of transfer requests. It means if/once the policy is implemented, it applies to resources already allocated by RIPE NCC but not yet transferred. Resources already transferred wont be affected. I think this is a sensible approach. Quoting Marco: The proposal would apply to allocations that were made in the past. Whenthe RIPE NCC received a transfer request, we would check to see that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was made. For example, a /22 allocation that was made 23 months before the proposal was accepted would have a waiting period of one month before it could be transferred. What kind of allocations is talking Marco about? RIPE to LIR or LIR to LIR? Regards,
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
+1 On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On 12. mai 2015, at 17.41, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Actually while it was according to the letter of the policy, I think it will be hard to find someone to actually say it was according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy. So I'd challenge the reasonable in your statement. A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the spirit of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the spirit either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary. You have a point about the spirit of the policy not necessarily being clear from the policy's text. That said, I find it hard to read the current policy in a way where you could reasonably make the assumptions you make a case for defending. The document isn't limited to a 5.5 that stands on its own, and anyone reading this point alone cannot honestly claim to act in good faith. Additionally, the loophole in the policy is a clear discrepancy, one which an interested party would ask for clarification about and not merely pretend wasn't there. Going along the route you've chosen therefore seems somewhat disingenuous to me, sorry. -- Cheers, Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:29:23PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: What kind of allocations is talking Marco about? RIPE to LIR or LIR to LIR? *Allocation* is a well-defined term that is strictly RIPE NCC - LIR 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 pgptdZd9a7YBR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Actually while it was according to the letter of the policy, I think it will be hard to find someone to actually say it was according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy. So I'd challenge the reasonable in your statement. A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the spirit of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the spirit either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary. So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a /22 with the intent to sell it is reasonable. Much as the assumption that one can join the NCC now and receive a /22 to assign it to customers, is. There are already ideas - in this very discussion - about forcing LIRs to return all v4 space not already assigned and, if that ever becomes a proposal, this very discussion will be used to argue that that would not be retroactive. Well, so you say it will not stop the bad guys from doing their stuff in the next few months, so we should not do it at all, so they can keep up the business for the next years, am I understanding this correctly? I'm saying that endangering a lot of innocents - via an, in my opinion, dangerous precedent - is too high a price to pay to catch a limited number of baddies. For the record, before I get accused of acting in bad faith again, I have no dog in this race. I'm not managing any allocations that are either up for transfer or, ttbomk, younger than 2 years. rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away). Trying to keep the noise level low: I agree strongly with this and with everything else Gert has said in this and his prior email. Richard
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote: You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. The proposed change is sensible and clarifies what I have understood as the intent when the current policy was created. I could wish for more, but that is for another discussion and another change proposal. :) -- Jan
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Am 11.05.15 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. +1 from me. Best regards, --ck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: This has already happened before (remember 2007-01?) and it happens with every change of policy.. 2007-01 is a good example of why ex post facto changes are a bad idea. This was controversial then and is still controversial today, especially the application to resources long since assigned. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed it more stringently. For example, criteria for making IPv4 assignments, 5 years ago, is no longer the same today, the IPv4 policy has changed several times since 2010 and everything that used to be policy in the past no longer matters, what matters is the latest policy document and not the criteria from years ago. Well, had last /8 been applied ex post facto, we would all have had to return our /20s and /16s etc. ;) (and we've seen ideas to that or similar effect floating around on the list these last few weeks!) As a LIR, I would want some security that what was perfectly appropriate last year does not suddenly expose me to sanction because someone decided, after the fact, that it should have been illegal all along. (not this proposal specifically, but the precedent) It will not be a precedent, the precedent has been already approved years ago. Thank you for proving my point. Because it was done for 2007-01 it can now be done for 2015-01. So if, next week, the community decides that all allocations /22 should never have been made, I lose the ones I have already? Because it was already done for 2015-01 which was done because it was already done for 2007-01? I would not support an implementation that would require the RIPE NCC to apply the same policy differently for an allocation received on the 20th of July vs an allocation received on the 21st of July. This policy proposal's intent is to bring all allocations under the same umbrella (once implemented) and not create more umbrellas.. I'll only apply to allocations made = 2 years before the implementation date for a maximum of 2 years. Not, IMO, such a problem. rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi all! I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation. Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of IPv4 blocks, I want retort: today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8 (last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392) If we go here https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers press ctrl+F and input 185. we can see 508 results, but we should devide it by 2, due to there are 2 results in one transfer. So there are 254 transfers of IPv4 from the last /8. It is 4% from all allocated IPv4 /8. Also you should draw your attention to some LIRs who make more than 10 transfers every day. Yes, they don't transfer IPs from last /8. But did you think how many resources RIPE can fill if it returns unused resources? May be we will think globaly but don't about how to close a hole doesn't affect IPv4 exhaustion. So I oppose this proposal. 2015-05-11 22:44 GMT+03:00, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: This is borderline to bad faith. ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck -- - Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi all! I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation. Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of IPv4 blocks, I want retort: today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8 Last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392 If we go here https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers press ctrl+F and input 185. we can see 508 results, but we should devide it by 2, due to there are 2 results in one transfer. So there are 254 transfers of IPv4 from the last /8. It is 4% from all allocated IPv4 /8. Also you should draw your attention to some LIRs who make more than 10 transfers every day. Yes, they don't transfer IPs from last /8. But did you think how many resources RIPE can fill if it returns unused resources? May be we will think globaly but don't about how to close a hole doesn't affect IPv4 exhaustion. So I oppose this proposal. 2015-05-11 22:44 GMT+03:00, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: This is borderline to bad faith. ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck -- - Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Exuse me about two same emails. It was bag in my client 2015-05-11 23:22 GMT+03:00, Sergey Stecenko stecenkos...@gmail.com: Hi all! I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation. Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of IPv4 blocks, I want retort: today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8 (last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392) If we go here https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers press ctrl+F and input 185. we can see 508 results, but we should devide it by 2, due to there are 2 results in one transfer. So there are 254 transfers of IPv4 from the last /8. It is 4% from all allocated IPv4 /8. Also you should draw your attention to some LIRs who make more than 10 transfers every day. Yes, they don't transfer IPs from last /8. But did you think how many resources RIPE can fill if it returns unused resources? May be we will think globaly but don't about how to close a hole doesn't affect IPv4 exhaustion. So I oppose this proposal. 2015-05-11 22:44 GMT+03:00, Sascha Luck [ml] a...@c4inet.net: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: This is borderline to bad faith. ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck -- - Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko -- - Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote: This is borderline to bad faith. ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Sacha, On 11/05/15 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will turn out to be worth. if I understand correctly, you are opposing to the RIPE NCC's planned implementation of this proposal (under the terms and understanding of this Impact Analysis), is that correct? What If once the policy proposal would become policy and would be implemented, _all all allocations made after the implementation date_ will need to have a 2 years 'buffer' - would that be acceptable? I just want to clearly understand the reason for opposing. regards, Elvis -- http://v4escrow.net Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: el...@v4escrow.net mailto:el...@v4escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
That potential two years grace period is an invitation to all IP grabbers to grab more. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
