On 23.04.2015 16:33, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
- soften the last /8 policy - between 2010 and now the situation
changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to
mention that now we have some real-life experience.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to soften the last
I am just speaking about how easy requirement about making assignments can be
passed.
23.04.2015, 17:19, Matyas Koszik kos...@atw.hu:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
Hello,
On 04/23/2015 06:38 PM, Erik Bais wrote:
This made me smile while reading all the other emails on the AP-WG list
today :)
I support the spirit of the proposal, but I haven't read the text yet.
Especially that last bit :)
Well I had 92 other messages on the list to wade through
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 15:46, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH wrote:
So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and
instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning
it into the pool?
W dniu 2015-04-23 o 17:39, Opteamax GmbH pisze:
On 23.04.2015 17:20, -TOM- wrote:
Over described situation is not significantly different from real user
assignment. How to distinguish them? Send auditors?
So if I get you right only because it is impossible to check, it is ok
to cheat? And
Vladimir, +1
23 Апр 2015 г. 17:24 пользователь Vladimir Andreev
vladi...@quick-soft.net написал:
I am just speaking about how easy requirement about making assignments can
be passed.
23.04.2015, 17:19, Matyas Koszik kos...@atw.hu:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
On 23.04.2015
On 23.04.2015 16:13, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
OK. I explain this one more time :)
Just after receiving /22 you should create 2 x inetnum (each /23) with type
ASSIGNED PA. Formally you are right since you have made assignments.
Which is not the intention. but I agree, obviously we need to
One correction:
Not
Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B
where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22.
Octet A can be named series and B / 4 is possible block count in each
series.
B is always 64 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally
Hello Daniel,
Finally, someone said the word !
Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of
Unused space should be returned to RIPE???
Thank you !
--
Best regards,
Gabriel Voitis
W dniu 2015-04-23 o 17:16, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) pisze:
Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead
of Unused space should be returned to RIPE???
Ye!!! There are tons of unused /16's and even RIPE after ERX and
LEGACY actions has currently no
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
abuser is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging
allowing to receive second /22 etc.
So you agree my initial reply
Hello Matyas,
Same as how some LIRs got their (still unused) large swaths of netblocks
in the first place.
Yes, they are at the base of today IP marketplace, the list of transfer its
full with them..
--
Best regards,
Gabriel Voitis
On 23.04.2015 17:04, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 16:37, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to soften the last /8 policy ... as
Alex already mentioned. A business which needs IPv4 to survive does
something wrong ...
Today, 23/04/2015, a business
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:10:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
So what is the benefit for Elvis, who is the broker?
If he found 2 sides who make the transfer he will lose the part of clients.
If this proposal doesn't affect him all resellers will be brokers.
If you read the minutes
It's was just a logical chain. Prerequisite is having multiple /22 in LIR is
abusing.
In my opinion members that open multiple LIR's and sell received /22's are not
abusers and RIPE NCC is not abuser.
But if anybody says name abuses policies that man have to declare RIPE NCC
is also abusing
OK. I explain this one more time :)
Just after receiving /22 you should create 2 x inetnum (each /23) with type
ASSIGNED PA. Formally you are right since you have made assignments.
Furthermore you can create route object and announce your /22. In such case
nobody can say you don't use you
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:45:56PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses
according to the following:
The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.
The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE
So you acknowledge that you don't like that people do business? Right?
If yes, it's you personal meaning because you are affiliated person (it's
pleasant to you to know nobody can earn money such way).
I speaking about NOT ACCEPTING proposals which lead to any advantage (including
moral
As variant:
1. I receive /22
2. I create 2 x inetnum with type ASSIGNED PA
3. I announced it for about 1 month
4. I sell it
Such way I fully correspond to 5.* statements.
23.04.2015, 15:54, Opteamax GmbH r...@opteamax.de:
On 23.04.2015 14:50, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
3.0 Goals of the Internet
I answered to this question in another thread.
I can announce my /22 for some time. And after that sell it
23.04.2015, 15:59, Opteamax GmbH r...@opteamax.de:
On 23.04.2015 14:45, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the
allocation.
Please point me
OK. Let's it's welcome side effect.
Please answer me the following question:
What reasoning (not purpose) has current proposal?
23.04.2015, 15:57, Gert Doering g...@space.net:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:45:56PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:05:46PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
OK. Let's it's welcome side effect.
Please answer me the following question:
What reasoning (not purpose) has current proposal?
The RIPE NCC discovered that people are abusing the current policy
Gert Doering
--
Hello,
If this proposal will be accepted:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
The price per IP found at IPv4 Transfer Listing Service will be double or
even worst.
Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them.
To pay double or even more for
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:18:41PM +0300, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:
If this proposal will be accepted:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01
The price per IP found at IPv4 Transfer Listing Service will be double or
even worst.
Why should it? The price for
openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR
is - and always was - abusing the policy.
Any links to documents proving it?
but for me the way you are proposing to run a business is
almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...
Such a comparison is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 14:20, Gert Doering wrote:
The last /8 is not there to do business as usual, based on IPv4 - it
is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things
with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6.
This is sliding off-topic, but I don't see
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR
is - and always was - abusing the policy.
Any links to documents proving it?
Read the mailing list discussions about the last /8 policy. The /22 per
LIR was always about
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:22:34PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them
together.
Indeed, because that would prevent legitimate business processes.
But what it does is making the open, sell, close quick cycle
less
You say legitimate business processes.
But how have decided what is legitimate and what is not?
I see no prohibition in current policies to open, receive /22 and close. So
it's also legitimate business!
And why receiving /22's for own company is legitimate and for selling is not?
23.04.2015,
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according
to the following:
The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.
The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the
14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4
3.0 Goals of the Internet Registry System
can be treated by a lot of ways.
I (personally) doesn't find any prohibition in st. 3.0 to have many /22 per LIR.
23.04.2015, 15:39, Opteamax GmbH r...@opteamax.de:
On 23.04.2015 14:31, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
openig a bunch of LIR only for
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to
the following:
The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.
The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th
of September
Hello Opteamax,
BTW about stolen, lets look at transfer list and see companies that have /16
/17 /18 blocks
Do you think they ever could explain, so much resources ?
In their case, internet activity its very tiny or absent.. but they hold large
and very large blocks.
How many of them
As mentioned in other mails, creating a LIR to optain /22 V4 without
needing it (for that LIR) is the abuse of policy ... So you get an
advantage against competitors which respect the last /8 policy and it's
intention ...
BR Jens
On 23.04.2015 15:02, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:
Hello Opteamax,
Because the policy says one /22 per LIR.
Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC.
Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :)
The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to
other companies). An such order doesn't
What from this quotation is? Please give me a link.
And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing?
Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question:
Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing?
If anybody from members want to forbid
Nothing bad in the things when people need IPs and get them.
IPs should cost nothing. It's just numbers. The luck of IPs - it's the
RIPEs falt I guese.
As far as we see a lot of IPs are not routed and not used. But some
small companies own a lot of IPs space never realy used.
Another one trick
Hi,
On 23.04.2015 15:28, NTX NOC wrote:
So the most profit comes to RIPE, but we still have the same LIR fees,
Thats just not true.
Regards
André
On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main
abuser is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging
allowing to receive second /22 etc.
So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
enough,
Hi Gabriel,
I agree with you that it might satisfy a specific need for a company at a
certain time to open a new LIR..
I’ve seen LIR’s request for a /22 that didn’t even knew they could still get
a free /22 from the RIPE NCC. . . .
The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of
Hello Gert,
at the transfer services i saw sellers that want 17-20 USD per IP, this is
crazy, do you want forward ?
Do you think this is a normal ?
If right now they ask soo much even when they know someone like me can open a
new LIR an close after 1 year.
What will happen when someone
Hi, All!
I decided to express my opinion regarding this proposal.
As appears from the proposal summary it pursues the following goals:
1. prevent opening LIR, receiving /22 and selling it
2. prevent making a financial profit from st. 1
3. save IPv4 space from exhaustion
Looking at listed items
Hello Gert,
Thank you for reply.
You said people happily trade, what do you want to do ?
They have 3 choice:
1. Close their business..
2. Buy at outrageous price, from the smart guys, almost people happily
trade are very near to close their business.
3. Make another LIR and move resource
Hello Erik,
Why someone will come to me to get new IPs, when they can open a LIR by them
self ? Without extra cost ?
I think everyone that open a LIR right now its because they dont have any
chance to BUY from sellers..
Thank you.
--
Cu stima,
Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:
3. Make another LIR and move resource to the old LIR.. get NEW IPs,
never spammed and reasonable price.
You're free to do this after the minimum time according to the proposed
changed text. You just have to keep the LIR open for at least 24
45 matches
Mail list logo
