Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Hi, On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ciprian Nica wrote: I agree with Daniel. A well defined problem is half of the solution. +1. In this particular case the problem arises because the main question is who makes the money, the LIR or the end user. And when noone is really "making money", but is

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

Hello Sergey, > If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 > networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. You seem to misunderstand how this works. It is the community that sets these policies, not the NCC. The RIPE NCC implements what the internet community

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

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

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

Hi, I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the proper location to "vote" for this proposal. I support this proposal and thus: I say +1 for the proposal. With kind regards, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Hi Sander, I think I should've carefully looked at Ingrid's e-mail, maybe through some glasses :) Indeed, the message from Ingrid stated exactly what I was asking for. I am still hoping to receive a message (it can be in private) from one of the the NCC's ops to see if we can find out why

Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Hello Elvis, > Therefore, I think that the RIPE NCC should talk to every single company > holding a PI assignment from an ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED block and give > them the option to give up on the maintenance of the IPs (and the right > to transfer/sell) and transform them into ASSIGNED PA, or

[address-policy-wg] Fwd: Re: Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Dear Sander, list, below is an e-mail sent on 8/29 which did not make it to the list. Dear RIPE NCC admins - please check and help me understand why the message forwarded below did not make it to the mailing list as the google mail server ( that is used to host my @velea.eu private e-mail

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

Dear Peter, [from the impact assessmant] Returned IPv4 addresses from LIRs and End Users and addresses received from IANA's recovered pool are currently added to the RIPE NCC's available IPv4 pool. >If this proposal is accepted, legacy resources that have been handed over to the RIPE NCC

Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Thanks for the update and summary Sander! I have been thinking a bit both during this particular case and in general about something from another working group. Job introduced the concept of "numbered work items" with several phases and where the first phase reads like (quote): phase 1:

[address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

Hello working group, The discussion on how the RIPE NCC should deal with ALLOCATED PI / ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED has died down a couple of weeks ago. We therefore think that it is time to draw conclusions. A total of 16 people and the working group chairs participated in the discussion following

[address-policy-wg] seperate subject, because people can't follow directions

On 2016 Oct 20 (Thu) at 12:38:55 +0200 (+0200), Netskin NOC wrote: :On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote: :>This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: :>of 2016-03. :> :>Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try. : :I know and thus didn't start a

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

On 20.10.2016 12:30, Gert Doering wrote: This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject: of 2016-03. Folks, I understand that e-mail is hard. But give it a try. I know and thus didn't start a discussion about the topic, I just suggested it...probably by reviving the

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

Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:26:21PM +0200, Netskin NOC wrote: > If anything, better implement a policy which forces the (big players) to > return their (huge amounts) of unused space, as > briefly discussed a year ago: This is a separate discussion, and should not be done under the Subject:

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

Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I oppose both policies. > > For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair > nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or > important changes which should never be added just like

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

-1 for the proposal If anything, better implement a policy which forces the (big players) to return their (huge amounts) of unused space, as briefly discussed a year ago: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-October/010768.html

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

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Randy Bush wrote: > > If I would moderate the list I would remove people > > let's not > > Ok, I can be a hater too sometimes but I don't like it. > I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader > > says something wrong but he

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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote: > I support this proposal. To qualify my +1, while I do get the argument that this will not entirely stop hogging and speculation, it's at least a step in the right direction. Even considering Ricardo's

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

> If I would moderate the list I would remove people let's not > I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader > says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins > just sit in the room and applause. i assure you that this is not just from communist

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

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

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

> PUBLIC IP addresses have given to us to use not to trade. We haven't > paid for getting them, and we are not the owner. today, they are not given to us; we pay to rent them. yes, we are renting integers.

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

> I will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is > strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup. i understand your position. but my problems are up a couple of layers. we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot of new members. while

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

I'm of the second group. For me the IPs is something that is lend to me to do my work and not to trade them. This is the main idea behind the public IP addresses, according to IANA. I've mentioned this before in a discussion regarding another policy. PUBLIC IP addresses have given to us to use

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

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

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

I think the problem in the end is how we consider what is an public IP prefix. In my city (Madrid, Spain, if you have curiosity, welcome to the city hosting RIPE 73), we have taxis. A license to have a taxi is assigned for life and when the owner retires, he can sell it for whatever he wants