From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue Jan 11 09:28:55 2005 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:28:55 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space Message-ID: Hi, Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.) I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-) The last RIPE document which seems to say that IP address must not be sold is RIPE-185 (AFAIR), which has been obsoleted -- the newer address policy documents seem to be quiet about this. RIPE-185 said: [under Publishing Local IR Policy] 2) Charging Policies A Local IR must publish its charging policy. The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: "Address space is a finite resource with no intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be ascribed to it. While they may not charge for address space as such, registries may charge for their administrative and technical ser- vices. Registries must publish their operating procedures and details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable." -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From elmi at 4ever.de Tue Jan 11 09:37:48 2005 From: elmi at 4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:37:48 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050111083747.GB3194@new.detebe.org> Hi Pekka, > Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address > allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two > offers, for example: > - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 > - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 > (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is > the same.) Well, why not? I for one cannot tell whether maintaining the /25 is more hassle to the ISP than the /27, maybe they have to file an application with RIPE since their AW is too small or whatever. If the organization qualifies for a /25, an audit will only result in "everything's been done properly, the applications are in order", provided the ISP documents their assignments correctly. > 2) Charging Policies > A Local IR must publish its charging policy. > The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: > "Address space is a finite resource with no > intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be > ascribed to it. While they may not charge for > address space as such, registries may charge > for their administrative and technical ser- > vices. Registries must publish their operating > procedures and details of the services they > offer and the conditions and terms that apply, > including scales of tariffs if applicable." There you are: The ISP is not charging for the adress space, but for its setup, maintenance, reverse delegation, monthly usage checking, whatever... Even if it's undesirable, it's not against the "law". IMHO. Yours, Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, ) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]--- From fw at deneb.enyo.de Tue Jan 11 10:44:05 2005 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:44:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: (Pekka Savola's message of "Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:28:55 +0200 (EET)") References: Message-ID: <878y70s3kq.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> * Pekka Savola: > I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind > situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-) At this point, it would be more likely that any policy forbidding the sale of address space is abolished, I think. 8-) Extra fees for static vs. dynamic IP addresses (without proper RIPE documentation) are quite common. From he at uninett.no Tue Jan 11 10:49:52 2005 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:49:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <878y70s3kq.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <878y70s3kq.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <20050111.104952.107523479.he@uninett.no> > > I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in > > this kind situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-) > > At this point, it would be more likely that any policy > forbidding the sale of address space is abolished, I think. 8-) On the contrary. However, I can beleive people are sloppy in their language with respect to this rule; when they say that they charge for the address space, they really are charging for the services associated with and the maintenance related to the address space. One important point to remember is that the address space does not become the customer's property "because he paid for it". > Extra fees for static vs. dynamic IP addresses (without proper RIPE > documentation) are quite common. That doesn't contradict the rule, I think. Regards, - H?vard From gert at space.net Tue Jan 11 11:21:58 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:21:58 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address > allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two > offers, for example: > - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 > - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 > (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is > the same.) > > I recall this is not allowed. Are there any recourses in this kind > situations? Threaten the ISP with LIR audit? ;-) Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the "charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people will go and find an alternative. Personally, I can see a reason why (getting) a /25 might be more expensive than a /27. Usually customers are pretty sloppy in documenting their need - and figuring out why they need 16...32 IPs is usually less time- consuming than figuring out why they need 64...128 IPs ("do they have subnets? virtual hosting with SSL? is it because the 'need to have it immediately! *stomp foot*'?) - so it's sort of "charging by effort", not "charging by amount of address space". Of course it's hard to see the underlying rationale in a specific ISP's offer from the outside. (OTOH, the whole industry is so NAT-damaged that more and more ISPs have serious issues understanding the concept of "assigning a subnet of reasonable size" to end-users. *sigh*. Time for IPv6. Really.) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From wtremmel at vianetworks.com Tue Jan 11 11:33:09 2005 From: wtremmel at vianetworks.com (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:33:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050111103346.9E1AA180127@u1ffm> Hello, > > Personally, I can see a reason why (getting) a /25 might be > more expensive than a /27. Usually customers are pretty > sloppy in documenting their need - and figuring out why they I think a more serious issue is customers claiming "I can get a /24 from ISP x, either you also give me one or I don't sign". Next thing happening is sales coming to you requiring you fake a document explaining to RIPE why this customer does need a /24. Or - I have seen LIRs like this - give the customer the /24 without even doing any documentation ("who cares if RIPE notices in some years - I will be gone until then, let someone else clean up"). I don't mind ISPs charging for doing the documentation of assigning IPs, but I do mind if getting more IP addresses (without a real need of the customer) becomes an argument in selling. best regards, Wolfgang From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue Jan 11 11:45:50 2005 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:45:50 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> References: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Gert Doering wrote: > Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the > "charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe > that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people > will go and find an alternative. Sigh. And I thought IP addresses were a global resource, with a bit nobler motivations and goals to recommend or mandate that the ISPs don't screw their customers on something they get for free. Live and learn.. It seems this matter needs to be taken up in the local telecom legislation.. If the end users had realistic possibilities to obtain routable PI, there would not be such a concern, because the ISPs could not create a lock-in situation (or force to renumber or use NAT).. But now this seems like a problem. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From gert at space.net Tue Jan 11 11:46:54 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:46:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <20050111103346.9E1AA180127@u1ffm> References: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> <20050111103346.9E1AA180127@u1ffm> Message-ID: <20050111104654.GM84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:33:09AM +0100, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote: > I don't mind ISPs charging for doing the documentation of assigning IPs, > but I do mind if getting more IP addresses (without a real need > of the customer) becomes an argument in selling. ACK. (It's interesting to see where this argument is coming from - you're around even longer than I am :-) - I see this specific issue "give me a /24 or I go to UUnet!" as a lesser problem these days than maybe 4 years ago, because most customers only ask for a /32 or /29 these days, having a NAT router or NAT firewall already in place, and being used to "everybody does NAT". So having proper address space is not really an argument anymore, as opposed to "our controller says it must be cheap") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Tue Jan 11 11:53:28 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:53:28 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: References: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050111105328.GN84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:45:50PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Gert Doering wrote: > >Actually we decided on one of the last RIPE meetings to obsolete the > >"charging by local IRs" document, because the majority seemed to believe > >that "the market will rule this" - if one ISP charges too much, people > >will go and find an alternative. > > Sigh. And I thought IP addresses were a global resource, with a bit > nobler motivations and goals to recommend or mandate that the ISPs > don't screw their customers on something they get for free. Live and > learn.. I don't see this as negative as you seem to do. There's the optimistic view: there are *so many* ISPs on the market that an ISP that screws its customers will just see them wander away to other ISPs - and there are enough that don't charge by-address (Charging for the initial setup has never been prohibited anyway). The pragmatic/pessimistic view is "what shall RIPE do about it anyway?" - there are enough ISPs out there that don't bother with any sort of RIPE documentation, and can get away with it because they have a /14 and don't expect ever to need more address space - there is hardly any pressure RIPE can apply here, and there isn't enough peer pressure out there to have effect. [..] > If the end users had realistic possibilities to obtain routable PI, > there would not be such a concern, because the ISPs could not create a > lock-in situation (or force to renumber or use NAT).. But now this > seems like a problem. Well - let's be somewhat realistic here. If you get a leased line to your ISP, it will usually cost a hefty setup fee as well, because there's effort involved in digging up the street. Will you also call that a "vendor lock-in"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jorgen at hovland.cx Tue Jan 11 12:36:39 2005 From: jorgen at hovland.cx (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:36:39 -0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space References: <20050111083747.GB3194@new.detebe.org> Message-ID: <008901c4f7d1$d0fdb550$cb18c389@macs.hw.ac.uk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elmar K. Bins" >> Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address >> allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two >> offers, for example: >> - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 >> - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 >> (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is >> the same.) > > If the organization qualifies for a /25, an audit will only result > in "everything's been done properly, the applications are in order", > provided the ISP documents their assignments correctly. > >> 2) Charging Policies >> A Local IR must publish its charging policy. >> The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: >> "Address space is a finite resource with no >> intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be >> ascribed to it. While they may not charge for >> address space as such, registries may charge >> for their administrative and technical ser- >> vices. Registries must publish their operating >> procedures and details of the services they >> offer and the conditions and terms that apply, >> including scales of tariffs if applicable." > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging2004.html As clearly stated in the above URL, RIPEs charging scheme is almost solely based on how many ip addresses you require and it should be fairly easy to calculate the direct cost of a /25 allocation vs a /27. It might not cost that much in RIPE fees for a /25 or /27, but I don't see why an ISP shouldn't be able to charge their customers using the same scheme if they wanted to (and of course also add administrative fees etc). Joergen Hovland From gert at space.net Tue Jan 11 13:19:03 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:19:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <20050111104654.GM84850@Space.Net> References: <20050111102158.GK84850@Space.Net> <20050111103346.9E1AA180127@u1ffm> <20050111104654.GM84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20050111121903.GA4881@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:46:54AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > (It's interesting to see where this argument is coming from - you're around > even longer than I am :-) - I see this specific issue "give me a /24 or > I go to UUnet!" as a lesser problem these days than maybe 4 years ago, I apologize for specifically naming UUnet here. This was just my fingers typing "a big ISP that everybody knows (and the competition fears)". I have NO evidence that UUnet is doing network assignment in any way that is not conforming to the RIPE policies. Sorry again. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pekkas at netcore.fi Tue Jan 11 13:21:19 2005 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:21:19 +0200 (EET) Subject: [address-policy-wg] ISPs selling IP address space In-Reply-To: <008901c4f7d1$d0fdb550$cb18c389@macs.hw.ac.uk> References: <20050111083747.GB3194@new.detebe.org> <008901c4f7d1$d0fdb550$cb18c389@macs.hw.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, J?rgen Hovland wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/charging2004.html > As clearly stated in the above URL, RIPEs charging scheme is almost solely > based on how many ip addresses you require and it should be fairly easy to > calculate the direct cost of a /25 allocation vs a /27. It might not cost > that much in RIPE fees for a /25 or /27, but I don't see why an ISP shouldn't > be able to charge their customers using the same scheme if they wanted to > (and of course also add administrative fees etc). Having such a cost distribution system would cost more for the ISP than what the gain is. Really. If you can this way optimizae that you're Medium instead of Large, you win 1500 EUR. Such ISPs would have at least 100 customers, I'd guess. So that's likely at maximum 1 EUR/customer/mo. Hardly something what's worth even thinking about in the billing department. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From leo at ripe.net Mon Jan 17 10:35:52 2005 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:35:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC Message-ID: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 from the IANA in January 2005. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC From registry at intelcam.cm Mon Jan 17 12:33:51 2005 From: registry at intelcam.cm (Local Internet Register) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:33:51 -0100 (GMT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] LIR Camtel - Cameroon Message-ID: <200501171133.KAA23294@intelcam.cm> Hello, This is the LIR of Cameroon telecommunications (CAMTEL), There is an ISP which have a space address allocated to him by RIPE, at the beginning he was a customer of another ISP (LIR). Now this ISP is not fonctionnal and want to become our customer, conserving his address space. I want to know if it can be possible and how to do this. Best regards. TONYE, LIR Camtel - Cameroon. ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- From marcus.gerdon at mainz-kom.de Mon Jan 17 11:22:46 2005 From: marcus.gerdon at mainz-kom.de (Marcus Gerdon) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:22:46 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LIR Camtel - Cameroon References: <200501171133.KAA23294@intelcam.cm> Message-ID: <002e01c4fc7e$7d4306c0$852f1fac@asgaard> Hello Tonye, is the ISP who wants to keep his allocated addresses a RIPE member (LIR) himself ? If he is an active LIR the allocated resources can be transferred from one LIR to another for an administrative fee. If he is a member in closing state for any circumstance the same applies but in addition all debts have to be cleaned at RIPE. If neither is the case (he isn't / wasn't a LIR) and he holds PI space there's no problem but if it's address space allocated to another LIR except himself he's nearly no chance to keep it except when his old uplink ISP has re-assigned him a complete resource and is willing for the trouble to transfer this to you (after checking with RIPE). Take a look at the document RIPE-301 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/mergers.html and if you can match somewhere within this contact the lir-help at RIPE. regards, Marcus --------------------------------------------------------- mainzkom Telekommunikation GmbH Ein Unternehmen der Tropolys-Gruppe Network Engineering and Administration mainzkom / maineotk / pulsaar Tel: +49-(0)6131/129343 | Fax: +49-(0)6131/129321 Mombacher Str. 40, 55122 Mainz, Germany --------------------------------------------------------- AS15837 | MG3031-RIPE --------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Local Internet Register" To: Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:33 PM Subject: [address-policy-wg] LIR Camtel - Cameroon Hello, This is the LIR of Cameroon telecommunications (CAMTEL), There is an ISP which have a space address allocated to him by RIPE, at the beginning he was a customer of another ISP (LIR). Now this ISP is not fonctionnal and want to become our customer, conserving his address space. I want to know if it can be possible and how to do this. Best regards. TONYE, LIR Camtel - Cameroon. ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- From jeroen at unfix.org Mon Jan 17 11:46:30 2005 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:46:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <1105958790.8582.37.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 11:00 +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > Hi Leo, > > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! What is the issue with this? Deutsche Telekom can _easily_ show demand for the need for this allocation and that is the only thing they need to do. I actually am very glad that they got this, now let's see how quickly all Germans will have access to IPv6, this should give some momentum to hosters saying "there are no IPv6 clients". This policy has been in place for quite some time already and works for most if not all people, complain address-policy-wg at ripe.net if you really do not like it. Btw we are nearing 1000 global IPv6 allocations over 77 countries ;) 1x /19 2x /20 2x /21 1x /23 59x /24 2x /27 57x /28 2x /30 1x /31 772x /32 11x /35 Totaling in 910 TLA prefixes. 145 of which 6bone, the /24 & /28's + some /32's which will disappear next year (6/6/2006). RIPE (432) APNIC (183) ARIN (130) LACNIC (20) The RIPE region is of course in lead ;) Also see: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ > > > > BTW, i read > > 2001:2000::/20 ===> smallest RIPE Allocation : /32 > > and > > "Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC > > Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ? a /32 is "small", a /20 is "big", thus a /32 is the smallest prefix that will be given from this block. The largest is indeed logically a /20. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From vgi at zoreil.com Mon Jan 17 11:00:34 2005 From: vgi at zoreil.com (Vincent Gillet) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:00:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Hi Leo, > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > from the IANA in January 2005. Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! > BTW, i read 2001:2000::/20 ===> smallest RIPE Allocation : /32 and "Smallest allocation" refers to the smallest allocation made to LIRs by the RIPE NCC Since 2001:2000::/20 have only one allocation, should not it be "/20" ? V From timothy at ripe.net Mon Jan 17 12:02:40 2005 From: timothy at ripe.net (Timothy Lowe) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:02:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] LIR Camtel - Cameroon In-Reply-To: <200501171133.KAA23294@intelcam.cm> References: <200501171133.KAA23294@intelcam.cm> Message-ID: <20050117110240.GB4144@ripe.net> Dear Antoine Tonye, Yes Marcus is correct. I will open a ticket for you and we can proceed with your question off list. You will receive an email shortly. Talk to you soon. -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe RIPE NCC Staff X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:33:51AM -0100, Local Internet Register wrote: > > > Hello, > > This is the LIR of Cameroon telecommunications (CAMTEL), There is an ISP which > have a space address allocated to him by RIPE, at the beginning he was a > customer of another ISP (LIR). Now this ISP is not fonctionnal and want to > become our customer, conserving his address space. I want to know if it can be > possible and how to do this. > > Best regards. > > TONYE, > > LIR Camtel - Cameroon. > > > ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- > > > > ------------- Fin message r?achemin? ------------- > > -- Best Regards Timothy Lowe X-Organization: RIPE Network Coordination Centre X-Phone: +31 20 535 4444 X-Fax: +31 20 535 4445 From dr at cluenet.de Mon Jan 17 12:32:04 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:32:04 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> References: <41EB86F8.6070107@ripe.net> <20050117100034.GC16150@opentransit.net> Message-ID: <20050117113203.GA2601@srv01.cluenet.de> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:00:34AM +0100, Vincent Gillet wrote: > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2003:0000::/18 > > from the IANA in January 2005. > > Yep, and 50% of this allocation as already been allocated to one LIR. > > I am not used to see 50% of IANA block allocated to LIR, but i > assume that it is new address-policy rules i was not aware of ! Those are in place since longer. Take customer count and HD-Ratio and do the maths. It's simple, and DTAG would probably have qualified for more if they really wanted. France Telecom has a couple of million customers too I guess. A /20 can be justified by approx. 3.2 million, a /19 needs ~5.5mio. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From ncc at ripe.net Thu Jan 27 14:38:36 2005 From: ncc at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:38:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Final call for comments on ICANN Strategic Plan 2004 - 2007 Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050127142913.01b2ada8@mailhost.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that the call for comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan will close on the 10 February 2005. The ICANN Strategic Plan is available as a draft for public comment at: http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-16nov04.pdf The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) will gather comments on this document from each of their regional communities before making a joint statement through the Number Resource Organization (NRO) in February 2005. We encourage you to review the ICANN Strategic Plan document and send any comments you have to:. An archive of comments sent to this mailing list will be available from: http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/icann-plan/ Please send your comments by 10 February 2005. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC