Hi,
-1
I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
Amir Mohsenian
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@space.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:33 PM
To: Amir Mohsenian
Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015
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
вторник, 9 июня 2015 г. пользователь Petr Umelov написал:
I support Aleksey's opinion (NOT this proposal).
Why address -policy -wg
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
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI
When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
I support this proposal.
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI
When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
published.
+1 , full support.
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:45:27PM +0430, Amir Mohsenian wrote:
Hi,
-1
I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
Repeating the statement and still not explaining *why* you object is
not exactly spelling out your objection.
Again: the consensus based process is based on voicing
* 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
* Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.netmailto:mschm...@ripe.net
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, Alignment
of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations has been published.
I fully support the proposal
Hervé CLEMENT
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:16:23AM +0430, ?? ?? wrote:
policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy
Please explain the reasoning behind. Otherwise it is hard for us to
address your concerns.
It does not go far enough is something I'll not consider a viable objection
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:03AM +0430, Amir Mohsenian wrote:
policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy
Again. Please spell out your objections, so we can address them.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
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
On ma, 2015-06-08 at 15:43 +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI
When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published.
+1
--
Teun Vink
BIT | t...@bit.nl | +31 318 648 688
KvK: 09090351 | GPG:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, Keep IPv6 PI
When Requesting IPv6 Allocation has been published.
The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
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
Hi,
I'm completely for the proposal and think that it could bring some initial
intentions in place with reality.
+1
Regards,
Vladislav
Ru.iiat
-Original Message-
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Andre Keller
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015
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
hi
policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy
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
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
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt mschm...@ripe.net wrote:
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 7 July 2015.
There really isn't much to say, except to express my full support.
--
Jan
* 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
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
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
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
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,
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
* 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
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
* 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
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
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
*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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
-1 to this proposal
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015, at 15:43, Marco Schmidt wrote:
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02
+1
* 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
57 matches
Mail list logo
