On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote:
Could you provide insight in what you want to review ?
That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and
not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers.
My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 16:46, Nick Hilliard wrote:
the price of a /22 obtained by LIR churn will remain at startup fee + 1Y
membership, and that it doesn't make any difference to the overall cost
whether this is done in Q1 or Q4 because when you open a LIR, you are
liable for a full year's
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, at 15:32, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
This policy proposal tries to close the loophole where companies only
request the /22 in order to transfer it immediately using the transfer
policy.
If this is random/occasional behavior, this policy may be able to stop
or reduce it.
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?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 20:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Tore Anderson wrote:
If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's
remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night.
The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE
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 Wed, May 6, 2015, at 09:11, Tomasz SLASKI wrote:
IMO, the situation will continue as long as the IPv4 prices will be
accepted by the market. After crossing the threshold of pain, people
will notice that it is better to migrate to IPv6 instead of paying sick
money for antiquitie numbers.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015, at 14:52, Marco Schmidt wrote:
A proposed change to RIPE Document IPv6 Address Allocation and
Assignment Policy
is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02
Support.
However,
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
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 09:46, Petr Umelov wrote:
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I
can't do it now.
The multi LIR accounts issue is a pure NCC issue, not a policy one. That
discussion should probbaly be started on members-discuss mailing-list
where RIPE
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:04, Gert Doering wrote:
If you want a change that addresses people opening multiple LIRs, please
bring up a policy proposal to that extent.
... on members-discuss and possibly for the next GM. That is a
membership issue not a policy one.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 07:23, Arash Naderpour wrote:
My argument was not about dummy-LIRs set up, I'm talking about the LIRs
that are not new and are already registered years ago, (before RIPE NCC
starts distribution of last /8, before 2012) now if they apply to receive
their last /22 why
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
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015, at 12:24, Job Snijders wrote:
It might be interesting if we could shift the discussion away from How
to justify to RIPE NCC how you run your network to a slightly different
angle: Helping the community prevent hoarding. Nothing more, nothing
less.
Because AS numbers are
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015, at 12:44, Job Snijders wrote:
ASNs have no associated cost.
To my understanding they do, but the cost is set to zero until further
notice or vote.
Someone please confirm or correct please ?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015, at 12:13, Gert Doering wrote:
I like this :-) - of course I'd like to hear what RS would have to say
about it (we can do this vs. there are too many different cases to
make sense out of this, etc.) - but the general idea is nicely
lightweight and flexible...
The idea is
sferred IPs out of its
> registry)
You have a point but:
- not sure people will support it better with this condition added
- there may be legitimate cases where you managed to have a inbound
transfer and you still need adresses.
Those being said, stricter criteria is under investigatio
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015, at 13:34, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Transfer/ selling of ipv4 space should simply be forbidden.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves
Encouraging and stimulating it OTOH, could have been skipped/avoided.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
more related to business processes than anything
else.
But I do agree that it's something that should be fixed at some point.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
one, but public dedicated v4
either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
but yet unsed allocations. We would have to
> restore
> needs-based policy first.
Things are a little bit more complex than that, but globally you are
right, and we should have been more vocal years ago, when nonsense
started to develop (no need, no new PI, PI trasnfer, ...).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
t were a /11 or even a /10.
Or at least "all recovered space since 2014-07-01", which is 1x /12 + 1x
/13 + 1x /14 + whatever will follow (current estimate : 1 x /15).
However, this will also de facto create an APNIC-style policy with 2
pools, which doesn't seem very popular around. B
here anyway.
Worst things is that we (RIPE community) kickstarted this market too
early.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
.
Any other optinion on this (other than "global no" or "no, no, no") ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 17:23, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new
That should have been "/21 rather than /20", concerning the limit of
already-held space.
Sorry for the error.
n about 3 years APNIC and LACNIC would have probbaly run out dry
(ARIN already did) and spill-over to RIPE area could be expected. Just
look at the existing us.* LIRs having only 185 v4 address-space.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
e enough people
"for" and not many people "against".
Any other opinions on this ? Including the size (proposed /20) ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
riteria for further allocations.
> This case we have to create 2015-10 to cancel 2015-01, or change the
> text of this one.
Where do you see an incompatibility between the two ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
t even
imagine....
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
NCC that is outside the final /8 pool (so basically,
> allocated pre-2012), that would sound very reasonable, fair and good for
> competition.
Returned ? After everything has been done to promote the address-space
market ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
unless 23.128/10 ...).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
pool to perform the
> allocation
>
> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"? Is it a
> single /22?
A /22 or equivalent.
Given de structure of the remaining space, the "or equivalent" shouldn't
may times (if ever).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 22:22, Kennedy, James wrote:
Unfortunately policy that rightfully allowed these also permitted some
opportunistic rogue LIRs to receive copious v4 space for End User
networks that were/are completely unrelated to the LIR but for the
subletting of internet number
current stocks of available addresses, for a lot
of people it doesn't work this way.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
r a certain time, but I'd couple
> it with some proof of ipv6 deployment (beyond just advertising a
> /32)
If you have some ideas of how to reliably determine "real ipv6
deployment" *AND* write down that criteria in a policy-friendly way,
you're welcome (want to be part of the p
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:03, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > b. treat all addressing space available for allocation as a single pool
> B. KISS.
>
> > 2. Conditions for allocation the first /22.
> Maintain the status quo.
Point taken.
> > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22)
> None of
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 11:09, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
> > I take "broken" as "painful and far enough from exhaustion", so in need
> > of a fix.
>
> Is there any urgency i
n the transfer business (not at all for now,
and if I ever will, it's highly unlikely for me to be on anything other
than the receiving side).
So I don't see any conflict.
Regards,
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
t care very much (if at all) about this - it just doesn't force us
to use IPv4 (like some others do). There are more than 50 regulators in
the RIPE area, and not all of them do a job the we could consider
"good".
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
community's policies (and hand things
over to national governments, or decice policies to be followed at the
GM).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016, at 23:22, David Conrad wrote:
> Radu-Adrian,
>
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> > Unless you manage to bring in money by using IPv6 and *NOT* IPv4, it
> > remains either a &quo
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 02:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I don’t think the regulator is forbidding using a 6in4 tunnel because LI
> regulation, otherwise, they will not allow any kind of VPN, etc?
I don't think they do. But chasing 100 000 users running VPNs is not the
same thing as chasing
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 02:31, Sergey wrote:
> What's the problem with using it and deploying IPv6 on your own network?
My understanding is that his problem is "going to jail" if he does so.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 11:06, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE
>
> ???
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-to-pa
ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
thing that:
- changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most
important no-go for 2016-03)
- does it retroactively
- tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
erger is left over until after 2016-03 goes live,
they will also have to stay with 2 memberships forever.
- "new company #3" which just got their /22 will face the risk of
having to pay one membership per /22 forever.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
ng", it limits "transfer by policy". The M
has become stricter (pending written confirmation) and pushes some
legitimate cases in policy territory.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse),
effectively banning or heavily restricting transfers, or we keep it the
way it is today, i.e. for *NO* allocations.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
policy
> that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that
> entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit
> silly a couple of years from now.
And makes clear the retroactive intent.
In fact, only use fire to kill it if you don't have anything more
effective (to kill it).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
htly less than a /10. Or slightly
more then the amount recovered from IANA.
Marco, can you confirm this ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
on't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you
by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks.
Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016, at 21:24, Sander Steffann wrote:
> So, let me start by volunteering again :) I would love to serve this
> working group for another term as one of its chairs. A short introduction
> for those who don't know me:
+1
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs / fr.coriolis
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016, at 17:30, Erik Bais wrote:
> As we are almost at the end of the current phase (after today. )
[x] yes, this makes sense, go there
If anything minor needs adjustment, it can be done afterwards. The way
it is today, the policy is clearly better than the existing status quo.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, at 12:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>IIRC, the triggering of the "last /8" policy (as it has usually been
> known)
>did not coincide with receipt of 185/8 from (NB: not "by") IANA by
> RIPE NCC,
>but rather with the first allocation by RIPE NCC from 185/8.
185/8
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016, at 16:55, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
> Why not just check for record for their main site and mention of
> IPv6 somewhere, like "/X for every customer on every tariff" or
> something similar depending on the market ?
>
> It may put enough pressure for them to
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 10:46, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
> Last /8 policy came with some strings attached (IPv6 allocation) but
> there is no way a new LIR will show some IPv6 progress before initial
> IPv4 allocation was made. But with additional allocation it IS possible
> to check if they
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:38, Stepan Kucherenko wrote:
>
> They have to deal with that anyway sooner or later. Also it might become
> an additional pressure, "our rivals have this strange thing called IPv6
> on their site, can we do it too?".
At which point I prefer being in the situation of
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 18:00, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> > I do understand that. I just do not agree with the "as long as possible,
> > no matter what" approach.
> > For me, the issue is that right now we are in a "please suffer,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 17:37, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> As a separate issue, the RIPE NCC is not in the business of telling its
> members how to run their networks.
Still a somehow separate issue, it shouldn't be in the "sell IPs"
business neither, but it looks like it's exactly what it's doing
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016, at 15:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Regarding the current allocation policies, you still have not addressed
> the query that several people have raised about why it is better to shut
> off opportunities for future internet service market entrants than it is
> to make things
On Sun, May 22, 2016, at 13:02, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what
> constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not
> automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise.
Investment fund would probably be more
mpany. And if
> > it will not be RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old
> > LIRs" getting all the benefits (one single membership fee instead of
> > several). I can see a hat there
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
So it seems that issuing IPv4 space is still possible even after you cry
out loud everywhere that you have none left. Don't tell me we (small
LIRs) have to do the same with only a /22 in stock :)
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 17:17, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
> Hi Radu,
>
> Le 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit :
> > For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just
> > a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses
cations"
- there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
qualify
- with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
/8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
allocations".
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote:
> OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:
>
> Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
> Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)
I'm OK with that.
> New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
> Budgeted membership
On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 14:52, Peter Hessler wrote:
> The 23.128/10 block is ONLY for /24-/28 allocations. These are not
A /24 every 6 months (provided that conditions keep being fulfilled).
Because less than /24 is pretty much useless.
> intended as general purpose IP blocks, and are ONLY
h possibility that this
proposal is only a bad joke (even it we're May 15th, not April 1st).
Just in case it's not clear, I'm completely against.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
pretty much voids the purpose
of the condition ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 16:39, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> If it were my proposal, here's how I would go about it.
>
> Withdraw the current proposal.
> The proposer can always do this during the process.
>
> Introduce two new proposals (2016-somenumber and 2016-someothernumber)
>
one by the LIR it may actually
decrease the depletion rate (saving months lost with extra allocations).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
onest ones will not have to use the same practices that
they already consider "cheating".
> I hear your arguments but I don't think 2015-05 is the right answer for the
> community.
If you have any ideas, you're welcome to share.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
lexity is a no-go.
That could even have been achieved with 2012-04 (rejected back in 2013).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
sted block
goes beyond a certain size (commonly /24, occasionally down to /26),
they are recommended (or even pushed) to become a LIR and get their /22.
There are others that just "can afford" to spend some money to become
LIR and get some space, even if it's not really used, just in case
things go wrong in the future.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 13:36, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2016, at 11:49, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> > <ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> >
> > ... and there are other markets where "no dedicated IPv4 per customer"
> > equals no busin
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016, at 10:42, Lu Heng wrote:
> As I understand, more and more end user are becoming LIR as their ISP
> refuse to give them IP, therefore it fundamentally changed the
> very definition of LIR.
>
> The outbreak in the member mailing list last time reminds us how big that
> group
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:16, Peter Hessler wrote:
> Growth into a market that should be killed, should not be encouraged by RIPE.
What you are actually saying is the "Internet Access for Small Business"
market should be killed.
A "softer" interpretation would be that it should be left to
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 10:33, Tim Chown wrote:
> > there are really no incentives to IPv6 adoption.
>
> Really?
What incentive ? A black T-Shirt ? (for the record, I preferred the blue
one handed out ~2010-2012).
ive.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016, at 16:09, Tim Chown wrote:
> As others have said, everyone wants to grow. If you’re starting a new
> venture v6 should be at the heart of what you’re doing.
Tim,
This is a good way not to start a business, and if you still do it, not
to have many customers.
No matter how
dly requesting extra
> /22s (or whatever) through this proposal and then selling/transferring
> the space without updating the database? If they tried to do this today,
Time ?
On the other hand, I would say that someone accepting the purchase of a
block not declared in the database has a real problem to solve.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
so serve
"new entry".
Did you actually read the new text ?
> pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.
No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
again, we are not talking about handing out in one shot !
Otherwise, I can understand your point of view.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 18:17, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
> I’m arguing against it because it is the wrong thing to do, full stop. We
> have a working policy, and we should stick with it.
I'm not sure everyone has the same view of "working".
> Anyway, I’ve registered my objection – I’m done
C sells IPv4 adresses. I would
definitely NOT call that a success.
> I think this policy is not for faster exhaustion but for "farier
> exhaustion" and is offering a path to go over IPv4 while still needing
> it to grow.
What we are trying to compensante is the "fair"
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.
Except that members
; mode may not be the case for
somebody offering wifi on a non-commercial basis, but if it still is,
you may always try to use "longer than /64" (??? /128 ???) subnet per
device.
I haven't tried to see if "longer than /64" works with my equipment,
since for me it's a non problem (I do assignments from PAs).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
; - but that's for the community to decide, in the end)
Several years would be OK, given that some set-ups use ASNs outside of
the GRT on the long (even "very long") term (PPPoL2TP aggregation from
incumbent, other ugly things that some people consider to be the norm).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
we really didn't focus in the task of establishing
> barriers/boundaries. But we might consider this for v2.0, if it helps. :-)
So I'll wait a "better" v2.0 or v3.0, or v4.0 .. :)
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ources for
that matter).
And if I were to agree with the proposal (which is not the case right
now), I would say that some thresholds should be used. Like /10 or /11
available for /23 allocations and /12 available for /24. Under no
circumstance /24 now.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
I strongly support this policy.
Makes things clear and outcomes predictable (I even suspect implementation of
the current policy to be occasionally/randomly "bent" towards something more in
line with what this proposal aims)
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
rom happening again, which
is a good thing.
Ah, and please fix typos :)
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
eserved for
> this purpose. When a temporary assignment is returned, it is added back
> to this pool.
>
> Finally, I would like to clarify that IPv4 allocations and temporary
> assignments come from two separate pools - neither influences the other.
>
> I hope this helps.
It certainly did.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ds to be a proposal for the policy to change
(in order to allow that), and the proposal is accepted by the community
following the PDP (which is the point where things start getting VERY
complicated - such a proposal will most likely be rejected).
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
d how do you do that when assignments are smaller (prefix longer) than /24.
What does a customer do with a /27 PI ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Support here too.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Meanwhile, in ARIN-Land:
https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg98840.html
Fwd: [arin-announce] ARIN Board Suspends Waiting List Issuance Policy
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
rom he
reserved pool or from the "dust" ?
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Wed, May 29, 2019, at 17:48, Gert Doering wrote:
> Does this matter?
For the IXP - definitely no. For the rest of the pool - maybe. This is why I
was asking.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ant function for the Internet as a whole.
+1
We should go on with the current version.
*IF* you consider that lowering the default to /25 is really necesarry, you can
still submit a new proposal for thay, AFTER the current one is ik and the extra
space secured.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
