Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 01:56:48AM -0700, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
So after accepting this policy people can transfer IP's without any
additional cost like before.
It means although you know this policy won't work you are supporting it?
Why??!
Please take this into private conversation.
Dear Garry
So after accepting this policy people can transfer IP's without any
additional cost like before.
It means although you know this policy won't work you are supporting it? Why??!
--
Shahin Gharghi
Hi
You are just adding noise to the list.
The messages show you are making noise. If you have any idea we can
hear that. And I think you'd better play fair. You are using your
power as a chair to get this proposal accepted.
I asked a question and if you have an answer for that, tell me.
People
On 1 Jul 2015, at 12:13, Shahin Gharghi sha...@gharghi.ir wrote:
And I think you'd better play fair. You are using your
power as a chair to get this proposal accepted.
This is utter nonsense.
I asked a question and if you have an answer for that, tell me.
People will be able to transfer
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:31:10AM -0700, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
This question is for you and all of the members too. There is nothing private.
You are just adding noise to the list.
Please discuss your differing interpretations of the process with Garry
off-list - and feel free to come
Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the
usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not
still logically replied.
Those questions were:
1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can
always transfer by taking ownership of the
Persomal attack!Let's talk substantially9:54, 30 июня 2015 г., Christopher Kunz chrisl...@de-punkt.de:Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov: In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to receive it earlierHi,now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the
Guten Tag,
Persomal attack!
Let's talk substantially
While I do not see a personal attack as such (just opposing your
argument isn't a personal attack IMHO), let's stick to substantial:
Being blacklisted isn't something that is out of an LIR's hands - when
they get notified of a problem/abuse
Hi
Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the
usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not
still logically replied.
Those questions were:
1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can
always transfer by taking ownership of the
Hi
Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the
usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not
still logically replied.
Those questions were:
1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can
always transfer by taking ownership of the
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 21:48, Gert Doering wrote:
This can be done, but is outside the scope of *this* proposal (and people
This (or something similar) will return at some point this year as a new
proposal.
It will follow the PDP before being accepted or not.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov:
In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to
receive it earlier
Hi,
now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the underlying
business model really is.
If ISPs burn through networks in a rate that puts whole
... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is
either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to
every site on the Internet) with open eyes ...
or deploying nat. wanna guess which has more takers?
Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov:
In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to
receive it earlier
Hi,
now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the underlying
business model really is.
If ISPs burn through networks in a rate that puts whole /22s on
I consider all arguments exchanged so I am left with thanking chairs for
maintaining a modicum of sanity so we don't have to.
Richard
Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
Dear group members
Hi !
I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop
making financial profit out of IPv4.
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years… So do you
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.br /
Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered.
Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the
proposal?
This is such a good idea that Sander did it two weeks ago in the conclusion
summary when he declared rough consensus.
Your point being?
Gert
Really?
I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander.
29.06.2015, 22:49, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.br /
Yes, it is, and it has been duly
I mean detailed analysis of pros and cons.
For example, why wasn't it separately mentioned about MA as a BIG hole?
29.06.2015, 22:50, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for
On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years…
Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-)
-dominik
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:42:20PM +0300, Manager wrote:
It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21 but not /22.
This can be done, but is outside the scope of *this* proposal (and people
are discussing it, so you might see something along that lines, or not) -
so that
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that
multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22
owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22.
But LIR
(all hats off)
If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work,
when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy
giving you a /22.
And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself.
Remco
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert
Arguments, please.
29.06.2015, 23:53, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk
that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have
In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to receive it earlier23:28, 29 июня 2015 г., "LeaderTelecom Ltd." i...@leadertelecom.ru:Dear Petr, But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. Yes, but technically it will be the same. You will
Hello!
Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal?
29.06.2015, 22:44, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi.br /br /The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months
It does not.
And
Petr Umelov wrote:
Excuse me, /13.
I am afraid you have misunderstood the policy. The policy requires allocation
units defined as:
IPv4 allocation unit = 1/5 of Recovered IPv4 pool, rounded down to the next
CIDR (power-of-2) boundary.
with a /24 minimum.
The result is that unless the pool
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
One more argument.
For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that
multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)
But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write
On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers,
last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to
IPv6 in 5 years…
Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-)
Btw, did anybody notice ARIN is down to
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:17PM +0430, Shahin Gharghi wrote:
I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop
making financial profit out of IPv4.
new arguments, please
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet
Hi.The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months that encreases IPv4 numbers. But this proposal tells contrary.Is it new argument?22:28, 29 июня 2015 г., Gert Doering g...@space.net:Hi,On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:17PM +0430, Shahin Gharghi wrote: I am seriously against this proposal, because
Samsung
Исходное сообщение
От: Shahin Gharghi sha...@gharghi.ir
Дата: 29.06.2015 22:16 (GMT+02:00)
Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Тема: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers
Dear group members
Hi !
I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi.br /br /The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months
It does not.
And please, arguments like this will not stop abuse, this is not
going far enough, we have enough addresses and it's my good right
to make money out of
34 matches
Mail list logo
