From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 10:47:13 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <8DCB1D87-3683-4369-BF34-F7476FD53182@steffann.nl> <534577D7.8020300@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> Hi all, As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a /8 I want to start this topic again. And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? Please, comment it. Regards, El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: > Hi Carsten, > > I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know > what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP > Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>> >>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>> those >>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >> >> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >> >> Best, >> >> -C. >> > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 10:56:03 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <8DCB1D87-3683-4369-BF34-F7476FD53182@steffann.nl> <534577D7.8020300@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 > allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to undo this change. Sorry, Richard From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 11:10:35 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > wrote: >> Should be use the Available IP Pool >> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), >> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door > for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this > was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what > would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next > upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? > > Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to > undo this change. I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with only a /22). I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, etc.) dont support it. Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it. I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 Regards, > > Sorry, > Richard > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jul 2 11:35:44 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 11:52:48 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600@tvt-datos.es> Hi Jim, You understandme wrong or I did not said it well. Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4. My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job on IPv6 deployment. About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen then. But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way so you all can understand what Im trying to say. Regards, El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?: > On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > >> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. > I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. > > You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. > > To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jul 2 12:34:36 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:34:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4116E38E-CAB5-4B32-9813-254C2EAE1C35@anytimechinese.com> Let's put it that way, it is over, so let it be it. Opening the pandora box won't changing the end results. Plus current /8 maybe able last long time-- in which is a good thing. Lu > On 2014?7?2?, at ??12:00, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 2. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Richard Hartmann) > 3. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > 4. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool (Jim Reid) > 5. Re: Use of the Reserved IP Pool > (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 10:47:13 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <53B3C711.9000701 at tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a > /8 I want to start this topic again. > And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 > IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > Please, comment it. > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know >> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP >> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... >> >> Regards, >> >> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>>> >>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>>> those >>>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >>> >>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:56:03 +0200 > From: Richard Hartmann > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" > Cc: Address Policy Working Group > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > wrote: >> Should be use the Available IP Pool >> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), >> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door > for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this > was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what > would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next > upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? > > Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to > undo this change. > > > Sorry, > Richard > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:10:35 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > Cc: Address Policy Working Group > Message-ID: <53B3CC8B.3060705 at tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > > El 02/07/2014 10:56, Richard Hartmann escribi?: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca >> wrote: >>> Should be use the Available IP Pool >>> (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph), >>> what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 >>> allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? >> While I can see where you are coming from, this would open the door >> for perpetual "this is the last time, promise!" situations. If this >> was accepted policy, time passed, and addresses were used up, what >> would happen with all new LIRs which only have one /21? After the next >> upgrade, what would happen with those which only have one /20? >> >> Given the history of those threads, I can not see consensus forming to >> undo this change. > I really understand what you mean, but take our position (New LIR with > only a /22). > I have IPv6 deployed on our network, at least half of our customers have > Dual-Stack access, the other half dont have IPv6 due to dont have a IPv6 > enabled equiptment (most of actual home routers (TPLINK, Conceptronic, > etc.) dont support it. > Our LIR have 5 stars IPv6, we have reserved from our /22 a /24 for > possible transitional mechanism if we run out of IPv4, but since > transitional mechanism harm mental health I wish to dont need it. > > I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if > one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have > 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help > on IPv6 deployment. > > To ensure Im not crazy about asking for that, APNIC is doing something > similar http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-105 > > Regards, > >> >> Sorry, >> Richard > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:35:44 +0100 > From: Jim Reid > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > Cc: Address Policy Working Group > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> >> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. > > I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. > > You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. > > To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 11:52:48 +0200 > From: "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > To: Address Policy Working Group > Message-ID: <53B3D670.1080600 at tvt-datos.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Jim, > > You understandme wrong or I did not said it well. > Im saying I have deployed IPv6 on my network. I cant "force" a customer > to buy another home router supporting IPv6. Anyways, as all of you know, > IPv6 isnt globally deployed to work only on that, so you need Dual-Stack > or DS-lite,NAT64, etc... if you run out of IPv4. > My infrastucture support full IPv6 conectivity, we as an ISP do our job > on IPv6 deployment. > > About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, > but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 > is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen > then. > > But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing > their network with only 1024 addresses. What Im trying is to help them > (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since > there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will > have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. > > A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in > expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the > time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. > > Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not > have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way > so you all can understand what Im trying to say. > > Regards, > > El 02/07/2014 11:35, Jim Reid escribi?: >> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> >>> I know opening the door to this could make IPv6 deploy slower, but if one of the requirements to get another /22 (or other prefix) is to have 5 stars plus other ones to ensure the deploy and use of IPv6 it may help on IPv6 deployment. >> I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve. Or how changing address policy will solve that problem. >> >> You say half your customers don't have IPv6-enabled CPE. This does not seem to me to be a justification for ripping up the current address policy to burn through the remaining dregs of IPv4 and leave absolutely nothing for any newcomers in 5, 10 or 20 years from now. >> >> To be quite blunt, ISPs these days really must be shipping dual-stack CPE AND have the supporting IPv6 infrastructure in place: working v6 transport/routing; provisioning; DNS; addressing/subnetting plans; etc, etc. > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966190565 > WEB: http://www.tvt.es > Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es > > --AVISO LEGAL-- > > En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. > Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1 > ************************************************ From ebais at a2b-internet.com Wed Jul 2 12:56:13 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:56:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <8DCB1D87-3683-4369-BF34-F7476FD53182@steffann.nl> <534577D7.8020300@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> Message-ID: <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Daniel, I don't see how handing out additional (free) space per LIR would solve the or your issue. Maybe it will solve your issue for a couple months, but not in the long run... The policy is clear, the reserved pool will provide a single /22 for every old and new LIR. If you require additional IP space there are options available, but the final /22 provided is the final free IP space that you and every other LIR is going to get. If you require additional space, other options are : - Transfer Market - setup a new LIR - buy an existing LIR that is moving out of business. And if that is not the solution for you, you need to see if CGNAT might be. I understand the issue you have and try to address, but the solution isn't to be found in the remaining Available IP Pool at RIPE. Running a new access network with only IPv6 will not fix the issue for today, you need to see how to overcome the period between today and when IPv6 will be the dominant protocol and customers don't care about v4 anymore because their XBOX or favorite website isn't only running on v4 anymore. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca Verzonden: woensdag 2 juli 2014 10:47 Aan: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool Hi all, As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a /8 I want to start this topic again. And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po ol-graph), what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? Please, comment it. Regards, El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: > Hi Carsten, > > I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know > what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP > Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>> >>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>> those >>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >> >> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >> >> Best, >> >> -C. >> > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 13:23:29 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:23:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <53B3EBB1.9030008@tvt-datos.es> Hi Erik, I'll comment inline: El 02/07/2014 12:56, Erik Bais escribi?: > Hi Daniel, > > I don't see how handing out additional (free) space per LIR would solve the > or your issue. Maybe it will solve your issue for a couple months, but not > in the long run... > > The policy is clear, the reserved pool will provide a single /22 for every > old and new LIR Im not talking about the reserved pool. As the graph sais, there are Reserved Pool 0.15 /8 and Available Pool is 0.93 /8 Reserved pool is for the last /22 policy. With the actual numbers, 2490 new LIRs can set up with a /22 allocation. > . > > If you require additional IP space there are options available, but the > final /22 provided is the final free IP space that you and every other LIR > is going to get. > > If you require additional space, other options are : > - Transfer Market > - setup a new LIR > - buy an existing LIR that is moving out of business. All of them includes money, What Im trying is to be "fair" with new LIRs. I say fair betwen quotes becouse it wont be fair. Never. Old LIRs have multiple allocations, new LIRs only 1 /22 and all we pay the same fee. I dont care about paying the same fee, this is not the question here. Im saying, we have almost another /8 and it could help new lirs to move/wait to IPv6 be fully deployed. I know, and im not pointing anyone here, old LIRs/brokers with millions of address have a bussiness with the transfer market, and a new policy allowing new lirs to get another /22 is bad for them. Now, what is RIPE? A Regional Internet Registry for help Local Internet Registry or is a place to make lots of money with IP transfers? If anyone replying this topic in the list have free IP allocations and are willing to sell or make money with them _should not_ be able to anwer here. Of course they will answer, and for sure, if they have free IP allocations and willing to sell they will not say it, but they are not objetives when saying: No more IP alloc than the /22 for new LIRs. > > And if that is not the solution for you, you need to see if CGNAT might be. > > I understand the issue you have and try to address, but the solution isn't > to be found in the remaining Available IP Pool at RIPE. > Running a new access network with only IPv6 will not fix the issue for > today, you need to see how to overcome the period between today and when > IPv6 will be the dominant protocol and customers don't care about v4 anymore > because their XBOX or favorite website isn't only running on v4 anymore. The non-expensive way to overcome the time betwen today and the day IPv6 is the dominant protocol is giving more space to those new lirs that need it. Regards, > > Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool > > Hi all, > > As I said in this list, and since the Available IP Pool grow to near a > /8 I want to start this topic again. > And the question is: Should be use the Available IP Pool > (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po > ol-graph), > what is near to a /8 (0.93 /8) to those new LIRs that only have a /22 > IPv4 allocation for another /22 (or other prefix)??? > > Please, comment it. > > Regards, > > El 30/04/2014 12:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca escribi?: >> Hi Carsten, >> >> I know, but before sending any proposal, and to be honest, I dont know >> what proposal I would need to change for the use of the Reserved IP >> Pool, I'd like to see others opinions, changes, etc... >> >> Regards, >> >> El 30/04/2014 12:20, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On 30.04.2014 11:56, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >>>> Seems everybody stop writting with this topic, what I have changed to >>>> "Use of the Reserved IP Pool" >>>> >>>> Are we going to discuss if we made an use of the Reserved IP Pool when >>>> it reachs a non-defined-yet prefix to give at least another /22 to >>>> those >>>> LIRs with only 1 /22? >>> it appears that you would need to send some text wrt. the parts of >>> the relevant policies you would like to see changed. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. >>> -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jul 2 13:50:15 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:50:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3D670.1080600@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> <53B3D670.1080600@tvt -datos.es> Message-ID: <49875B36-3E28-4586-B7FA-C9B043208491@rfc1035.com> On 2 Jul 2014, at 10:52, "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" wrote: > About newcomers on 5,10 or 20 years... I will not talk about 5 years, but 10 or 20....if in 10-20 years IPv6 is not the main protocol as IPv4 is now, dude, we have a very big problem. We cant know what will happen then. Indeed. And that's why we have an address policy which tries to arrange for there to be some IPv4 left for the future. Of course everything will be on IPv6 in 10 or 20 years -- aye right as we say in Scotland! -- but even then there might still be a need for teeny amounts of IPv4. Nobody knows for sure. So best keep some in reserve, just in case our grandchildren might come up with a compelling need for them. It's a bit like the Svalbard repository of most of the world's seeds: they're stored in a very safe place just in case there's a disaster and those crop seeds are *really* needed. > But now, year 2014, LIRs with only /22 are having "troubles" managing their network with only 1024 addresses. Tough. That's all they're going to get. LIRs knew/know that and should have planned accordingly. Throwing away even more IPv4 addresses at these troubles is just not going to help. It might buy a little short-term relief. But it can't make any difference to the eventual outcome. At best it would just push that crunch point back a few weeks or months. And what does the LIR do then, try to get yet another tweak to address policy to squeeze out another /24? Or a /28? When would this exercise in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic finally stop? > What Im trying is to help them (and me!) with that additional /22 (or it could start with /24 since there is a proposal to remove the minium allocation of /22) so they will have a breath while IPv6 are fully deployed on the world. Sorry, I just don't get it. A new or existing LIR can get one final /22 of v4 along with their IPv6 allocation. What could they do with an additional /24 of v4 that couldn't already be done with that /22? Where's the use case or justification? And not just for your network, but for LIRs in general. If there is a sound, compelling case for this, please make it. > A /24 can give you the chance to grow in customers without wasting in expensive equipment for CGNAT, NAT64, etc.. for some time, maybe the time needed by the rest of the world to finish in the IPv6 deployment. Er, that's a key reason why LIRs are eligible for their final /22. If this is genuinely not enough to deal with the v4-v6 transition, please explain how much would be and why. For bonus marks, show your working. As they say in school/college exams. :-) > Please, sorry about my very bad english, I know some phrases could not have sense. If so, please tell me and I will try to explain in other way so you all can understand what Im trying to say. Your English is just fine Daniel. And far, far better than my Spanish. Which admittedly isn't saying much: "una cerveza por favor" :-). From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jul 2 15:04:41 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:04:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3EBB1.9030008@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B3EBB1.9030008 @tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> Hi Daniel, > Im not talking about the reserved pool. As the graph sais, there are Reserved Pool 0.15 /8 and Available Pool is 0.93 /8 > Reserved pool is for the last /22 policy. With the actual numbers, 2490 new LIRs can set up with a /22 allocation. You have the numbers wrong here. The available pool is where the /22s are coming from. The reserved pool contains returned addresses. And for those the policy says: "5.3 Address Recycling: Any address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC will be covered by the same rules as the address space intended in section 5.1. This section only applies to address space that is returned to the RIPE NCC and that will not be returned to the IANA but re-issued by the RIPE NCC itself." So, unless address space is returned to IANA (we don't have a policy for returning RIR space to IANA at the moment, but we might) the whole 1.08 /8 will eventually be allocated as /22s. Cheers, Sander From jan at go6.si Wed Jul 2 15:32:46 2014 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:32:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B3EBB1.9030008@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B3EBB1.9030008@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B409FE.3090704@go6.si> On 02/07/14 13:23, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > The non-expensive way to overcome the time betwen today and the day IPv6 > is the dominant protocol is giving more space to those new lirs that > need it. The "non-expensive" way how to further delay the IPv6 implementation. Not every ISP is fully IPv6 ready yet and this sort of exercise would just postpone the action. Let's look at the IPv4 exhaustion problem from a different perspective - it's an accident that already happened, just that all parts did not stop moving yet... :) Cheers, Jan From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 17:01:19 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 17:01:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B3EBB1 .9030008 @tvt-datos.es> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Hi Sander, >So, unless address space is returned to IANA (we don't have a policy for returning RIR space to IANA at the moment, but we might) the whole 1.08 >/8 will eventually be allocated as /22s. So, Are we going to keep 18.11 Million address for new LIRs?. Thats makes 17685 new lirs, way more than double as we have now...sorry but that is ridiculous when we have LIRs with v4 allocation problems. -- Hi Jan, >The "non-expensive" way how to further delay the IPv6 implementation. Not every ISP is fully IPv6 ready yet and this sort of exercise would just postpone the action. Ok, then only give another alloc to those who already deployed IPv6 on their networks and customers. Its easy. Who do the job get a "gift" then you will see the IPv6 graph grow much faster than now. -- Hi Jim, >Throwing away even more IPv4 addresses at these troubles is just not going to help. It might buy a little short-term relief. But it can't make any difference to the >eventual outcome. At best it would just push that crunch point back a few weeks or months. And what does the LIR do then, try to get yet another tweak to address >policy to squeeze out another /24? Or a /28? When would this exercise in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic finally stop? For example, another /22 with give more than double time. Not just a few weeks/months. Double the time. If you make full use (not just assignements) of a /22 in 1 year, with a /21 you will have more than 2 years of breath. >Er, that's a key reason why LIRs are eligible for their final /22. If this is genuinely not enough to deal with the v4-v6 transition, please explain how much would be and >why. For bonus marks, show your working. As they say in school/college exams. How much? Dont really know. Im writting to the list for that matters. As I said before, another /22 to those LIRs who only own a /22 will give them more than double time. This is really LOT OF TIME. For the big telcos, who own millions of address, another /22 is nothing to them, for a Local ISP could be the breath they are waiting untill IPv6 is fully deployed. About your spanish, you know the better words you can know. With that you will make lot of friends here :) -- For all A little bit more than 20% of RIPE LIRs have 5 stars. We can be proud of being one. Are you guys one of them? Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 18:20:48 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:20:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <49875B36-3E28-4586-B7FA-C9B043208491@rfc1035.com> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9000701@tvt-datos.es> <53B3CC8B.3060705@tvt-datos.es> <53B3D670.1080600@tvt-datos.es> <49875B36-3E28-4586-B7FA-C9B043208491@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > It's a bit like the Svalbard repository of most of the world's seeds: they're stored in a very safe place just in case there's a disaster and those crop seeds are *really* needed. Having visited the Seed Vault (on my own, in permanent darkness, with a loaded WWII rifle which still had a swastika stamped into it, and an ice bear which roared on the slope behind me after an hour of me standing still and taking pictures in half a snow-storm; but that is another story), I have to disagree. The one is carved into bedrock, has double blast doors and two independent armoured storage chambers, is designed to withstand a nuclear explosion, be above the waterline even if the poles and glaciers melt down completely, and will remain cold enough for millennia to come even without active cooling and facing global warming. The other is just a place to store seeds. Richard From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 18:21:42 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:21:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > For example, another /22 with give more than double time. Not just a few > weeks/months. Double the time. You can not know that. > A little bit more than 20% of RIPE LIRs have 5 stars. We can be proud of > being one. Are you guys one of them? Unless you are planning to take away v4 address space from people, I don't see how that is relevant. At this point, it's clear that consensus will not be reached. As you still seem to be determined, you are free to create a proposal like "any LIR which reaches five stars and has only one single /22 will get one additional /x", but I expect it to not come to fruition. Personally, I will try to stop posting in these threads, Richard From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jul 2 18:31:06 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:31:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B3EBB1 .9030008 @tvt-datos.es> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <41E7630F-E20F-46D9-A0EB-5060829B2CCF@steffann.nl> Hi Daniel, > So, Are we going to keep 18.11 Million address for new LIRs?. Thats makes 17685 new lirs, way more than double as we have now...sorry but that is ridiculous when we have LIRs with v4 allocation problems. The RIPE NCC is currently growing with ?1200 new members a year, and that rate is even accelerating a bit. The amount mentioned above will be enough for ?10 years. Of course there will be some extra addresses that are returned to the RIPE NCC, so let's say 10 to 12 years. Can you be completely certain that a new LIR in 2025 won't need *any* IPv4 addresses? The whole internet must have transitioned to IPv6 by then because they won't have any IPv4 addresses for their DNS servers and resolvers, NAT boxes etc. That is why everybody is so careful about this. What you call ridiculous might be less than we might actually need in the long run... Cheers, Sander From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 18:44:38 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:44:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> Hi Richard, > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca > wrote: >> For example, another /22 with give more than double time. Not just a few >> weeks/months. Double the time. > You can not know that. You can not know if Im correct or not. But as my experience, as more space you have, more flexibility. IP use is "like" the bandwith use. Not for doubling your customers will make you use double bandwith. So if you double your max bandwith you can have more than double customers. Concurrency is the word. Doubling your IP space will give you mooooore time. > > >> A little bit more than 20% of RIPE LIRs have 5 stars. We can be proud of >> being one. Are you guys one of them? > Unless you are planning to take away v4 address space from people, I > don't see how that is relevant. Is relevant to know if a LIR with only a /22 needs more v4 space. If we are trying to push ppl towards IPv6 this could be a good start point. It is real that, what we've done is not working since nobody is deploying IPv6, maybe becouse they took enough space before the exhaustion policy. > At this point, it's clear that consensus will not be reached. Wow, 4 persons from 10k+ LIRs said no and it's clear...amazing. > > As you still seem to be determined, you are free to create a proposal > like "any LIR which reaches five stars and has only one single /22 > will get one additional /x", but I expect it to not come to fruition. Why not? Are you selling IP Space so you dont want that policy going up? Or you just have enough IP space so dont really care about the rest of the LIRs? > > > Personally, I will try to stop posting in these threads, Please, feel free to stop replying to any thread about this topic . As a community is not good, but I cant force you to keep posting on those threads. > Richard > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jul 2 18:49:27 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:49:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B3EBB1 .9030008 @tvt-datos.es> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <8612CDCA-B2B5-47CB-BCAD-3E95675A1846@rfc1035.com> On 2 Jul 2014, at 16:01, "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" wrote: > Are we going to keep 18.11 Million address for new LIRs?. Thats makes 17685 new lirs, way more than double as we have now... Your reasoning is flawed. Each of the existing LIRs should be able to get their final /22 of v4. [I don't know or care how many have done that yet.] That accounts for about 10M of the 16M addresses in the NCC's last /8. It might even be less than that if some of those final /22s can come out of the space that's stuffed down the back of the NCC's sofa: eg any as yet unallocated blocks lurking in the other /8s that IANA issued years ago. Worst case, there's 6M addresses remaining for ~6000 new LIRs. The NCC gets ~1000 new LIRs each year. So there's enough available v4 for at least 6 years assuming current behaviour continues. Seems enough. YMMV. > sorry but that is ridiculous when we have LIRs with v4 allocation problems. It's not. What *is* ridiculous IMO is making a request to change the current address policy without presenting any evidence why that policy is "broken" or how a change will "fix" whatever as yet unspecified problem needs fixing. What exactly are those allocation problems? How will they be fixed by handing out more v4 space? Why can't they be fixed in other ways? eg IPv6 on everything. You've not given any clear description of the problem. Saying vague things like "another /22 will give more than double time" are meaningless and unhelpful. Double what time? Why? And why double time, why not 10 times or 0.1 times? Where's the hard data? How come nobody else AFAICT is speaking up in support of your claims about allocation problems? If these problems were widespread and not just an isolated incident on your net, we should be hearing about them here. Your logic(?) here seems to be: "I'm going to stop smoking. But if you give me another packet of cigarettes I'll try to stop once they're done." The basic facts are unchanged. To all intents and purposes there is no more v4. Further discussion of v4 allocation policy is therefore like two bald men arguing over a comb. No amount of tweaking is going to change the fact there is essentially no more v4 to allocate. Or that LIRs have to face up to the conseqences there is no more v4. BTW it might be worth reading up on "the tragedy of the commons". You might also want to read the AP list archives and track the discussions which led to the adoption of the current policy. As I said before, please present a sound and compelling case for changing the current policy. Simply saying "it doesn't help me/my network" or "I want to have more time to finish my IPv6 transition" is not enough. You seem to be saying "I want a pony and I want one now". Well, you're not going to get a pony until you can make a valid case why you must have one and why other pets or means of transport can't be substitutes for that pony. :-) It would also help if your policy proposal clearly explained what an LIR could do with that extra /24 (say) that they couldn't already do with their final /22. From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jul 2 19:02:54 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:02:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> Hi Daniel, >> At this point, it's clear that consensus will not be reached. > > Wow, 4 persons from 10k+ LIRs said no and it's clear...amazing. Being an LIR or not and the size of the company (if any) doesn't matter here. All discussions here are between persons, not between companies or their employees. So far you have shown that new LIRs are short on IPv4 space. Well known fact :) You haven't shown how we can make that less painful without endangering the long-term stability. >> As you still seem to be determined, you are free to create a proposal >> like "any LIR which reaches five stars and has only one single /22 >> will get one additional /x", but I expect it to not come to fruition. > > Why not? Are you selling IP Space so you dont want that policy going up? Or you just have enough IP space so dont really care about the rest of the LIRs? Please don't start insulting people that offer you honest advice, even if you don't want to hear it. If you want to change anything then you really are free to submit a policy proposal, but be prepared to explain/defend your proposal to those on this list that don't agree with you without insulting people or calling other peoples opinions ridiculous. As I have asked you some time ago: when thinking about a policy proposal about these last IPv4 addresses you have to think about all the aspects: future developments, fairness, scalability, routing table size etc. Do the math. Ask people who are experienced in this field and be willing to learn and see things from different points of view. Policy making is hard and just stating that the current policy is ridiculous and that small LIRs should just get more address space is not going to get you consensus. Cheers, Sander From tomasz.slaski at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 19:25:17 2014 From: tomasz.slaski at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VG9tYXN6IMWabMSFc2tpIEdNQUlM?=) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:25:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <20140409181553.GK43641@Space.Net> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> W dniu 2014-07-02 12:56, Erik Bais pisze: > If you require additional space, other options are : > - Transfer Market Dangerous, you can easily fall victim to fraud, especially on legacy resources, and RIPE will do nothing to help you. > - setup a new LIR It is not obvious. I have an official position from Johem de Ruig that the new LIR does not always get the allocation. > - buy an existing LIR that is moving out of business. Same as above. RIPE NCC simply just can not accept the transfer, and you're cooked hard. Regards TS From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 19:53:08 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:53:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> Hi, Please, again, sorry if my words in english are rude. Sometimes its hard to me to express what i want to say and to read what you want to say. I apologies if anyone here feel insulted by me. As I understood, he said no, he said _nobody_ wants it when at this time, only 6 ppl replied the thread. He expect not to come this proposal so is knocking it down before I made it. I just want to know if he is doing market with IP space (not an insult) or if he have enough space to dont care about our problem (not an insult). Maybe I could sound rude, but again, its not my intention to sound rude or being an asshole. As you said, this is not about LIR or how big is your company so I have the same right to express our concerns and a non-really-expensive way to solve them. I want to make it the better for everyone, actual LIRs and future ones, but when you have enough space you cant be objetive. At this point, again, Im very sorry if anyone feel insulted by my words. I only want to make consensous about the possibility of giving more space to new lirs who only have a /22 and have made their job implementing and deploying IPv6 to their network. And im talking about real work, not only having an allocation and announcing it on bgp. I do really care about what community think about it, always in a good way and being open-mind, trying to see the position of the new/unexperienced new as I try to take the position of the old and experienced ones. Also, you can say -hey, we did few years ago a policy, what is done is done- but, anything but dead can be undone or Now, another not-an-insult question. Are you doing CGNAT or another mechanism to save v4 space? Do you have enough space for sell or simple enough to dont bother about ppl who dont have enough and are in trouble? What I want to know is if there is anyone who only have a /22 and are ok with not recieving (even if there are) more allocations (unknow prefix) only for if in 10-15 years IPv6 isnt globally deployed. Kind Regards, El 02/07/2014 19:02, Sander Steffann escribi?: > Hi Daniel, > >>> At this point, it's clear that consensus will not be reached. >> Wow, 4 persons from 10k+ LIRs said no and it's clear...amazing. > Being an LIR or not and the size of the company (if any) doesn't matter here. All discussions here are between persons, not between companies or their employees. So far you have shown that new LIRs are short on IPv4 space. Well known fact :) You haven't shown how we can make that less painful without endangering the long-term stability. > >>> As you still seem to be determined, you are free to create a proposal >>> like "any LIR which reaches five stars and has only one single /22 >>> will get one additional /x", but I expect it to not come to fruition. >> Why not? Are you selling IP Space so you dont want that policy going up? Or you just have enough IP space so dont really care about the rest of the LIRs? > Please don't start insulting people that offer you honest advice, even if you don't want to hear it. If you want to change anything then you really are free to submit a policy proposal, but be prepared to explain/defend your proposal to those on this list that don't agree with you without insulting people or calling other peoples opinions ridiculous. > > As I have asked you some time ago: when thinking about a policy proposal about these last IPv4 addresses you have to think about all the aspects: future developments, fairness, scalability, routing table size etc. Do the math. Ask people who are experienced in this field and be willing to learn and see things from different points of view. Policy making is hard and just stating that the current policy is ridiculous and that small LIRs should just get more address space is not going to get you consensus. > > Cheers, > Sander > > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 20:01:29 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:01:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> El 02/07/2014 19:25, Tomasz ?l?ski GMAIL escribi?: > W dniu 2014-07-02 12:56, Erik Bais pisze: > >> If you require additional space, other options are : > >> - Transfer Market > > Dangerous, you can easily fall victim to fraud, especially on legacy > resources, and RIPE will do nothing to help you. True > >> - setup a new LIR > > It is not obvious. I have an official position from Johem de Ruig that > the new LIR does not always get the allocation. Very true > >> - buy an existing LIR that is moving out of business. > > Same as above. RIPE NCC simply just can not accept the transfer, and > you're cooked hard. And...also true too! Finally someone that understand me! Regards! -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From gert at space.net Wed Jul 2 20:05:32 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:05:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> References: <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140702180532.GE43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 05:01:19PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > >So, unless address space is returned to IANA (we don't have a policy for returning RIR space to IANA at the moment, but we might) the whole 1.08 >/8 will eventually be allocated as /22s. > > So, Are we going to keep 18.11 Million address for new LIRs?. This is current policy. > Thats makes 17685 new lirs, way more than double as we have now...sorry but > that is ridiculous when we have LIRs with v4 allocation problems. Actually, it's called "reasonable stewardship", at least trying to do so: make sure that a new LIR in 10 years time can still get their /22 as well. The number "/22" was based on the current number of LIRs and growth estimates, and we could well be up at 25.000 in 10 years. (I'm not voicing an opinion on the actual proposal, just explaining that the current policy didn't happen "by accident" but after quite some debate, and was found by consensus. For the existing LIRs back then, "just give it all to the existing LIRs and stop thinking IPv4" would have been much more straightforward, but I'm sure you'd have not liked it any better) Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jul 2 20:29:10 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 20:29:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> References: <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 07:53:08PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > What I want to know is if there is anyone who only have a /22 and are ok > with not recieving (even if there are) more allocations (unknow prefix) > only for if in 10-15 years IPv6 isnt globally deployed. You can assume that most receivers of a /22 will not be happy. But most other receivers of IPv4 address space are not happy either - here in Germany, all the access ISPs that are still growing truly fast (like, "Kabel Deutschland") have moved to a DS-Lite model where IPv4 is delivered over a CGNAT - because there is no way they can get enough IPv4 for millions of customers. It's even worse for hosting providers. You can't put web server farms behind a CGNAT box... (We've been unhappy with IPv4 for the last 15 years, because the whole topic of "you can only get what you fill in paperwork for" has been annyoing even back then) So: yeah, most ISPs are not exactly happy with the way IPv4 shortage plays out. But what's the alternative? "Some people are still not able to get all the IPv4 space they need, and other people will not get anything at all anymore"? This is what people are trying to tell you: RIPE policy needs to balance individual needs against the needs of everyone else. We fully understand that you're not happy, but the feedback you got so far is that nobody else supports the idea where you plan to go - and this is usually a pretty good indication that no, there is no consensus. (Judging comments, there is the type that says "yeah, support", the one that says "I like the general idea, but some details will not work" and the ones that say "this is a bad idea and will not work, because..." - unless you have more of the first ones, no go) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ak at list.ak.cx Wed Jul 2 20:35:48 2014 From: ak at list.ak.cx (Andre Keller) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:35:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B45104.5080408@list.ak.cx> Hi, On 02.07.2014 19:53, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > As I understood, he said no, he said _nobody_ wants it when at this > time, only 6 ppl replied the thread. Well maybe only 6 people replied to this thread, but the topic was discussed at length when the last /8 policy was developed in the first place. If you look at how for example LACNIC burned through the first half of their last /8, I prefer the policy in place in the RIPE region. The current policy ensures that new entrants get a least a bit of address space to bootstrap. If I understand your proposal correctly, this would mean a lot of LIRs still not getting the resources they need (a /22 does not make a big difference for many LIRs) and new entrants would eventually get no ip addresses at all. I do not see that happening. Regards Andr? From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jul 2 20:42:03 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:42:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] the solution to v4 runout? Message-ID: <9F70C83E-0806-48D1-A5A3-73B7C33BEB95@rfc1035.com> I think this might be the answer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28125336 Perhaps the RIRs could come up with a definition of "chores" that LIRs have to complete in order to get (time-limited?) use of a v4 address. :-) From datos at tvt-datos.es Wed Jul 2 21:15:36 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:15:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> References: <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> Hi, This is my last email for today, Im at home a need to unplug my mind from work till tomorrow. You are talking about an ISP with millions of subscribers. I know everyone here are the same, nobody is up to other, but I think the community should think about not every LIR is a giant telco with millions subscribers. There are also little telcos with only thousands, and for sure they dont have the same bucket. A giant telco can spend millions ? on equipment, i+d, etc when the small ones cant. A hosting provider is not an example. A single IP can host hunders or thousands of webs,mails,dns, almost everything. An ISP cant do the same. About consensous, again, only 6 ppl of 3000k+ subscribers to the list cant be the consensous. Nobody cant say "This is going to nothing" because me and 3 more already said no, so dont go that way. I'll be very happy if tomorrow, or next week, i see emails with "Hey dude, your proposal can be better if..." instead of rotunds NOes with always the same; we discussed this few years ago. That means it cant me discussed again? Im trying to discuss, not to impose anything. Also, im being treated as crazy for what Im saying. As I said in first, another RIR is going to do what Im trying to propose here, even while they have a similar last /8 proposal, so I shouldnt be so crazy. Best regards to everyone. PS: Please, again, I dont want to offense or insult anybody. If any of the words/phrases I said expressed that, please correct me at anytime. El 02/07/2014 20:29, Gert Doering escribi?: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 07:53:08PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> What I want to know is if there is anyone who only have a /22 and are ok >> with not recieving (even if there are) more allocations (unknow prefix) >> only for if in 10-15 years IPv6 isnt globally deployed. > You can assume that most receivers of a /22 will not be happy. > > But most other receivers of IPv4 address space are not happy either - here > in Germany, all the access ISPs that are still growing truly fast (like, > "Kabel Deutschland") have moved to a DS-Lite model where IPv4 is delivered > over a CGNAT - because there is no way they can get enough IPv4 for > millions of customers. > > It's even worse for hosting providers. You can't put web server farms > behind a CGNAT box... > > (We've been unhappy with IPv4 for the last 15 years, because the whole > topic of "you can only get what you fill in paperwork for" has been > annyoing even back then) > > So: yeah, most ISPs are not exactly happy with the way IPv4 shortage > plays out. But what's the alternative? "Some people are still not > able to get all the IPv4 space they need, and other people will not > get anything at all anymore"? > > This is what people are trying to tell you: RIPE policy needs to balance > individual needs against the needs of everyone else. We fully understand > that you're not happy, but the feedback you got so far is that nobody > else supports the idea where you plan to go - and this is usually a pretty > good indication that no, there is no consensus. (Judging comments, there > is the type that says "yeah, support", the one that says "I like the > general idea, but some details will not work" and the ones that say "this > is a bad idea and will not work, because..." - unless you have more of > the first ones, no go) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From gert at space.net Wed Jul 2 21:33:05 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:33:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140702193305.GI43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > This is my last email for today, Im at home a need to unplug my mind > from work till tomorrow. > > You are talking about an ISP with millions of subscribers. I know > everyone here are the same, nobody is up to other, but I think the > community should think about not every LIR is a giant telco with > millions subscribers. There are also little telcos with only thousands, > and for sure they dont have the same bucket. > A giant telco can spend millions ? on equipment, i+d, etc when the small > ones cant. It really does not matter whether you're a telco with a million subscribers that only has 10.000 IPv4 addresses, or a small ISP with 10.000 subscribers that only has 1.000 IPv4 addresses. You're f*cked anyway. The amount of money the big telco has to invent into their carrier grade NAT gear would make your eyes water... while a small ISP could get this done on a reasonably sized server with Linux on it (and I know some that do). > A hosting provider is not an example. A single IP can host hunders or > thousands of webs,mails,dns, almost everything. An ISP cant do the same. If you do simple "shared" web hosting, yes. But there's hosting customers that can't be served with some few CPU cycles on a shared platform, but really need dedicated hardware (and lots of them), and those will need a few IPv4 addresses dedicated to them. Maybe only two /29 or so, but if all you have is a /22, good luck growing your business. Because *you* do not see the pain others feel, don't assume it is not there. > About consensous, again, only 6 ppl of 3000k+ subscribers to the list > cant be the consensous. Nobody cant say "This is going to nothing" > because me and 3 more already said no, so dont go that way. This is the way it works. Most people never speak up. Of those that speak up, you need someone to actually support the idea, and convince those that are sceptical. At this point, there is no support, and people are more negative than just "sceptical". So yeah, tomorrow 20 people could show up and say "hey, we think this is a great idea!", but today, I do not see them. [..] > Also, im being treated as crazy for what Im saying. As I said in first, > another RIR is going to do what Im trying to propose here, even while > they have a similar last /8 proposal, so I shouldnt be so crazy. We'll see how the walls look like that the ARIN crowd is running into, and it will be interesting. The RIPE community has decided to play this one very conservatively, and draw out the hard crash as long as possible. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From elvis at v4escrow.net Thu Jul 3 00:22:55 2014 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 01:22:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> Hi, you will probably say - you represent a broker so you will not win anything if companies will get an additional /22 for free ( someone already said that in a previous message - using more or less these words) and therefore that is why you are against the proposal. I will respond saying that Brokers do not really handle /22 transactions. The amount of work done by a Broker for a transfer takes a lot of time. The commission received from a /22 transfer is so tiny that it's not really worth it. I'd also like to provide my input to a few statements below: On 02/07/14 21:01, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > > El 02/07/2014 19:25, Tomasz ?l?ski GMAIL escribi?: >> W dniu 2014-07-02 12:56, Erik Bais pisze: >> >>> If you require additional space, other options are : >> >>> - Transfer Market >> >> Dangerous, you can easily fall victim to fraud, especially on legacy >> resources, and RIPE will do nothing to help you. > True I would say that it is only dangerous if you have never done business before. You should never pay in advance for something that you have not yet received. Various types of Escrow agreements or Bank Guarantee Letters are used, usually, when an IPv4 allocation is transferred. These are processes that do not involve the RIPE NCC but which make the transfers happen. Brokers are happy to assist with these processes. >> >>> - setup a new LIR >> >> It is not obvious. I have an official position from Johem de Ruig >> that the new LIR does not always get the allocation. > Very true Any new LIR will receive a /22 allocation as long as they can justify the use of at least one IP address. The policy is very simple in this regard. Off course, if you just open a new LIR to trick the system, you may end up not having a justification for that /22 (or that one IP). On the other hand, what stops you from opening a new company in a group for every 1000 customers? ;) >> >>> - buy an existing LIR that is moving out of business. >> >> Same as above. RIPE NCC simply just can not accept the transfer, and >> you're cooked hard. > And...also true too! RIPE NCC can not refuse the merger between two companies. If proper documentation is provided and (again) they do not smell the attempt of fraud, they will process and merge two LIRs easily. It is when you try to fraud or trick the system that you are 'cooked hard'. To conclude, my point of view is that we already have a process that works and that will provide the minimum amount of IP addresses to any start-up company for years to come. I do not have my crystal ball with me to see whether this will be for 1, 5, 10 or 20 years. I hope it will be for 20 years rather than 5. I say, let's keep the policy as is. Changing it from /22 to /21 will bring the pool down to 0 sooner than we expect and that may have really bad consequences for any new start-up registered in the RIPE Region. Kind regards, elvis -- Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tomasz.slaski at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 08:42:53 2014 From: tomasz.slaski at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VG9tYXN6IMWabMSFc2tpIEdNQUlM?=) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 08:42:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> Message-ID: <53B4FB6D.90604@gmail.com> W dniu 2014-07-03 00:22, Elvis Daniel Velea pisze: > I would say that it is only dangerous if you have never done business > before. You should never pay in advance for something that you have not > yet received. Various types of Escrow agreements or Bank Guarantee > Letters are used, usually, when an IPv4 allocation is transferred. These > are processes that do not involve the RIPE NCC but which make the > transfers happen. Brokers are happy to assist with these processes. What do you say about situation: you bought, the transfers are made successfully??, you paid after transfers, and suddenly after 8-12 months after transaction you see deletion and revert on the objects, because RIPE says that they were sold by a cheater. RIPE is not trying to help, they only said, that is because a due diligence process. My question is, where was the due diligence *during* the approved transfer? > Any new LIR will receive a /22 allocation as long as they can justify > the use of at least one IP address. The policy is very simple in this > regard. Again - this is not obvious. What about a situation that you are paying for setting up a LIR and then you do not get allocation, even though you show its need? And in the dispute you get the answer: "By signing the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement you only become a member. The membership fee covers the membership alone. Whether you receive an IP allocation is being separately reviewed." Regards Tomasz Slaski From tom at kebab.org.pl Thu Jul 3 08:55:28 2014 From: tom at kebab.org.pl (-TOM-) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 08:55:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B4FB6D.90604@gmail.com> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B3C711.9 000701@t vt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> <53B4FB6D.90604@gmai l.com> Message-ID: <53B4FE60.7020303@kebab.org.pl> W dniu 2014-07-03 00:22, Elvis Daniel Velea pisze: > >> I would say that it is only dangerous if you have never done business >> before. You should never pay in advance for something that you have not >> yet received. Various types of Escrow agreements or Bank Guarantee >> Letters are used, usually, when an IPv4 allocation is transferred. These >> are processes that do not involve the RIPE NCC but which make the >> transfers happen. Brokers are happy to assist with these processes. What do you say about situation: you bought, the transfers are made successfully??, you paid after transfers, and suddenly after 8-12 months after transaction you see deletion and revert on the objects, because RIPE says that they were sold by a cheater. RIPE is not trying to help, they only said, that is because a due diligence process. My question is, where was the due diligence *during* the transfer? >> Any new LIR will receive a /22 allocation as long as they can justify >> the use of at least one IP address. The policy is very simple in this >> regard. Again - this is not obvious. What about a situation that you are paying for setting up a LIR and then you do not get allocation, even though you show its need? And in the dispute you get the answer: "By signing the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement you only become a member. The membership fee covers the membership alone. Whether you receive an IP allocation is being separately reviewed." Regards Tomasz Slaski From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 3 09:02:12 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:02:12 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B4FE60.7020303@kebab.org.pl> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: can we have a wiki, https://whack-a-mole.ripe.net/... so we do not have to repeat these discussions? we could just point to the last time we went through this. ramdu From gert at space.net Thu Jul 3 09:14:40 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:14:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B4FB6D.90604@gmail.com> References: <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> <53B4FB6D.90604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140703071440.GJ43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:42:53AM +0200, Tomasz ??l??ski GMAIL wrote: > W dniu 2014-07-03 00:22, Elvis Daniel Velea pisze: > > > I would say that it is only dangerous if you have never done business > > before. You should never pay in advance for something that you have not > > yet received. Various types of Escrow agreements or Bank Guarantee > > Letters are used, usually, when an IPv4 allocation is transferred. These > > are processes that do not involve the RIPE NCC but which make the > > transfers happen. Brokers are happy to assist with these processes. > > What do you say about situation: you bought, the transfers are made > successfully??????, you paid after transfers, and suddenly after 8-12 months > after transaction you see deletion and revert on the objects, because > RIPE says that they were sold by a cheater. RIPE is not trying to help, > they only said, that is because a due diligence process. My question is, > where was the due diligence *during* the approved transfer? If the NCC approved the transfer, and months later takes the addresses away without any fault on the side of the receiving party, I'd bring that up before the board or before the RIPE arbiters. This is not what should happen (but without more background information, nobody on this mailing list will be able to say more). > > Any new LIR will receive a /22 allocation as long as they can justify > > the use of at least one IP address. The policy is very simple in this > > regard. > > Again - this is not obvious. What about a situation that you are paying > for setting up a LIR and then you do not get allocation, even though you > show its need? And in the dispute you get the answer: > "By signing the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement you only become a > member. The membership fee covers the membership alone. Whether you > receive an IP allocation is being separately reviewed." This statement is fully correct. The /22 allocation is not automatic, you have to send in a request, and meet the criteria - which are not very many these days ("must have an IPv6 allocation", and even that is being softened to avoid a few corner cases). Depending on the time this was sent, you might have failed to demonstrate need (which was abandoned earlier this year, but that's a fairly recent change), or not have requested an IPv6 allocation yet. Again: bring it up to the arbiters. That's what they are there for - neutral oversight. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tom at kebab.org.pl Thu Jul 3 09:42:23 2014 From: tom at kebab.org.pl (-TOM-) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:42:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140703071440.GJ43103@Space.Net> References: <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <53B4407D.5020204@gmail.com> <53B448F9.6000504@tvt-datos.es> <53B4863F.5040103@v4escrow.net> <53B4FB6D.90604@gmail.com> <20140703071440.GJ43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B5095F.4050005@kebab.org.pl> W dniu 2014-07-03 09:14, Gert Doering pisze: > If the NCC approved the transfer, and months later takes the addresses > away without any fault on the side of the receiving party, I'd bring > that up before the board or before the RIPE arbiters. This is not what > should happen (but without more background information, nobody on this > mailing list will be able to say more). The problem is, that this fraud cases is under investigation by the polish authorities and we signed one-copy NDA with them. As we explained to NCC many times, we cant disclose documents covered by NDA, additionaly regardless of confidentiality agreement signed when submitting evidence of fraud, the lawyers have warned, that the Polish criminal law in Article 241 ? 1 of the Criminal Code states: "Whoever without authority distributes news and facts from investigation before they were disclosed in court proceedings, subject to the penalty of fine, or restriction of liberty, or imprisonment for 2 years". > This statement is fully correct. The /22 allocation is not automatic, > you have to send in a request, and meet the criteria - which are not > very many these days ("must have an IPv6 allocation", and even that is > being softened to avoid a few corner cases). Depending on the time > this was sent, you might have failed to demonstrate need (which was > abandoned earlier this year, but that's a fairly recent change), or > not have requested an IPv6 allocation yet. All criteria are met. First of all we have an ASN and Ipv6 alloc. We need the v4 IP's because we are an small ISP and the bought IP's we lost. The NCC was not able and did not present any legal or contractual reasons to refuse v4 allocation to its member in this situation. Only reason was, that this is because of so-called fraud with v4 transfers. I can not agree with this, because RIPE NCC made this transfers, and after long time reverted it. I did possible to me checks of the seller, inclusive paid reports in relevant registers. And at this time I'm not sure, who really cheated me. > Again: bring it up to the arbiters. That's what they are there for - > neutral oversight. Gert Doering -- NetMaster Let's try. But I'm afraid that will be next loss of money. Regards Tomasz Slaski From datos at tvt-datos.es Thu Jul 3 10:28:04 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:28:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140702193305.GI43103@Space.Net> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> <20140702193305.GI43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B51414.5000604@tvt-datos.es> Good Morning everyone! I know you missed me since yesterday... El 02/07/2014 21:33, Gert Doering escribi?: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> This is my last email for today, Im at home a need to unplug my mind >> from work till tomorrow. >> >> You are talking about an ISP with millions of subscribers. I know >> everyone here are the same, nobody is up to other, but I think the >> community should think about not every LIR is a giant telco with >> millions subscribers. There are also little telcos with only thousands, >> and for sure they dont have the same bucket. >> A giant telco can spend millions ? on equipment, i+d, etc when the small >> ones cant. > It really does not matter whether you're a telco with a million subscribers > that only has 10.000 IPv4 addresses, or a small ISP with 10.000 subscribers > that only has 1.000 IPv4 addresses. You're f*cked anyway. > > The amount of money the big telco has to invent into their carrier grade > NAT gear would make your eyes water... while a small ISP could get this > done on a reasonably sized server with Linux on it (and I know some that do). About this point. Its clear, but at this moment cant know the legal implementations. I'll try to inform, but by the moment, what about if you recieve a court requirment saying: Hey, what customer had that IP Address in that date/hour? The court requirement NEVER said what the customer was doing so, at this moment noone of the "save IP space" mechanism is valid since we wont be able to correctly reply to the court requirement. > > >> A hosting provider is not an example. A single IP can host hunders or >> thousands of webs,mails,dns, almost everything. An ISP cant do the same. > If you do simple "shared" web hosting, yes. But there's hosting customers > that can't be served with some few CPU cycles on a shared platform, but > really need dedicated hardware (and lots of them), and those will need > a few IPv4 addresses dedicated to them. Maybe only two /29 or so, but > if all you have is a /22, good luck growing your business. > > Because *you* do not see the pain others feel, don't assume it is not there. That is true and Im sorry, but with only 1 Public IP Address you can have a really fu**king big cluster, a cloud, whatever you want. If vhost work for ISP Customer, as we said in Spain "another roster would sing" > > >> About consensous, again, only 6 ppl of 3000k+ subscribers to the list >> cant be the consensous. Nobody cant say "This is going to nothing" >> because me and 3 more already said no, so dont go that way. > This is the way it works. Most people never speak up. Of those that > speak up, you need someone to actually support the idea, and convince > those that are sceptical. > > At this point, there is no support, and people are more negative than > just "sceptical". > > So yeah, tomorrow 20 people could show up and say "hey, we think this is > a great idea!", but today, I do not see them. I'll wait then. Im sure im not the only one in this position, and again, as we say in spain, who doesnt cry doesnt suck. And no, is not that kind of suck. > > [..] >> Also, im being treated as crazy for what Im saying. As I said in first, >> another RIR is going to do what Im trying to propose here, even while >> they have a similar last /8 proposal, so I shouldnt be so crazy. > We'll see how the walls look like that the ARIN crowd is running into, > and it will be interesting. The RIPE community has decided to play this one > very conservatively, and draw out the hard crash as long as possible. Im just asking for a little bit of flexibility. I dont want to throw away all the IP space RIPE have. At this moment, Im sure there are LIRs with a /22 who only need a /24 and LIRs with a /22 who need more. If the proposal to remove the minimum allocation of /22 goes well, maybe something can be done about this. - New LIRs recieving a first allocation of /23 or /24? (And you can say; This will f**k the routing table. But /24 announces already happens) - New LIRs can ask for more allocations but in stacks of /24 up to a total of /21? If the problem is saving IP space for future LIRs, giving away /22 to all LIRs, independent to their needs, is a waste of space. Maybe and for the future, we should start talking about what should IANA do about legacy allocations not in use. Maybe forcing them to return space if they dont use/dont want it anymore instead of giving the chance to sell it. Dont know, Im really new to the world of RIRs/LIRs so Im sure you will know more about this than me. This could have been discussed before, dont know. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From gert at space.net Thu Jul 3 10:54:03 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:54:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B51414.5000604@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> <20140702193305.GI43103@Space.Net> <53B51414.5000604@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140703085403.GK43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:28:04AM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > > It really does not matter whether you're a telco with a million subscribers > > that only has 10.000 IPv4 addresses, or a small ISP with 10.000 subscribers > > that only has 1.000 IPv4 addresses. You're f*cked anyway. > > > > The amount of money the big telco has to invent into their carrier grade > > NAT gear would make your eyes water... while a small ISP could get this > > done on a reasonably sized server with Linux on it (and I know some that do). > About this point. Its clear, but at this moment cant know the legal > implementations. > I'll try to inform, but by the moment, what about if you recieve a court > requirment saying: Hey, what customer had that IP Address in that > date/hour? The court requirement NEVER said what the customer was doing > so, at this moment noone of the "save IP space" mechanism is valid since > we wont be able to correctly reply to the court requirement. And this is different for you as compared to a big Cable ISP exactly why? Everybody who is growing his IPv4 network is facing the same challenges, as there are no more IPv4 addresses to sustain the demand. So yes, if these are the requirements, you will need to do logging of NAT pool mappings, and depending on the amount of customers you have, some pretty expensive storage to hold the data... (things like A+P / MAP help here, because you're not randomly masquerading customer IPs, but it will be done by block). Be assured, for a telco with a million customers, this will not be easier or cheaper than for an ISP with 10.000 [ hosting provider ] > That is true and Im sorry, but with only 1 Public IP Address you can > have a really fu**king big cluster, a cloud, whatever you want. If vhost > work for ISP Customer, as we said in Spain "another roster would sing" So maybe changing line of business might be an option here... we cannot run multiple of our big hosting customers on a single IP address. If you can, this would be significant market advantage. [..] > At this moment, Im sure there are LIRs with a /22 who only need a /24 > and LIRs with a /22 who need more. If the proposal to remove the minimum > allocation of /22 goes well, maybe something can be done about this. > - New LIRs recieving a first allocation of /23 or /24? (And you can say; > This will f**k the routing table. But /24 announces already happens) > - New LIRs can ask for more allocations but in stacks of /24 up to a > total of /21? Yes, this will f**k the routing table. If we go there, and next thing you find that ISPs are unwilling to accept these /24s, because their routers' TCAM is full, who are you going to complain to? [..] > Maybe and for the future, we should start talking about what should IANA > do about legacy allocations not in use. Maybe forcing them to return > space if they dont use/dont want it anymore instead of giving the chance > to sell it. Dont know, Im really new to the world of RIRs/LIRs so Im > sure you will know more about this than me. This could have been > discussed before, dont know. The only way to *solve* this is to go to IPv6. Everything else is just investing into a dead technology, and drawing out the pains. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From datos at tvt-datos.es Thu Jul 3 11:17:40 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:17:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140703085403.GK43103@Space.Net> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <20140702182910.GF43103@Space.Net> <53B45A58.7020508@tvt-datos.es> <20140702193305.GI43103@Space.Net> <53B51414.5000604@tvt-datos.es> <20140703085403.GK43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B51FB4.6090309@tvt-datos.es> Hi, Im cutting a little bit this or it will be longer as the bible is. > And this is different for you as compared to a big Cable ISP exactly > why? Everybody who is growing his IPv4 network is facing the same > challenges, as there are no more IPv4 addresses to sustain the demand. > So yes, if these are the requirements, you will need to do logging of > NAT pool mappings, and depending on the amount of customers you have, > some pretty expensive storage to hold the data... (things like A+P / > MAP help here, because you're not randomly masquerading customer IPs, > but it will be done by block). Be assured, for a telco with a million > customers, this will not be easier or cheaper than for an ISP with 10.000 I dont know the legal things of other countrys, I dont even know everything for our country. Logging the NAT pool map could not be the solution. Again, the court dont sais what was doing, just say an IP and a Date, and for example, if court sais: Hey, tell me who was using this IP in this date/hour. The IP was scamming on Facebook. The logs will show like 75% of customers sharing the same IP were using facebook in that moment. There is also another legal problem. I'll try to inform but I think at this moment here is illegal to sniff and _save_ our customers connections. If i dont remember bad, you can sniff but only in realtime, just to see what is happening at the moment on your network. >> At this moment, Im sure there are LIRs with a /22 who only need a /24 >> and LIRs with a /22 who need more. If the proposal to remove the minimum >> allocation of /22 goes well, maybe something can be done about this. >> - New LIRs recieving a first allocation of /23 or /24? (And you can say; >> This will f**k the routing table. But /24 announces already happens) >> - New LIRs can ask for more allocations but in stacks of /24 up to a >> total of /21? > Yes, this will f**k the routing table. If we go there, and next thing you > find that ISPs are unwilling to accept these /24s, because their routers' > TCAM is full, who are you going to complain to? But there is actually /24's announces everywhere, Do you think it will mess up the table more than it is now? > > [..] >> Maybe and for the future, we should start talking about what should IANA >> do about legacy allocations not in use. Maybe forcing them to return >> space if they dont use/dont want it anymore instead of giving the chance >> to sell it. Dont know, Im really new to the world of RIRs/LIRs so Im >> sure you will know more about this than me. This could have been >> discussed before, dont know. > The only way to *solve* this is to go to IPv6. Everything else is just > investing into a dead technology, and drawing out the pains. I'm totally with you. Totally dude. Im an IPv6 fanboy. But that doesnt mean to dont try to have a solution for today. (<-- I dont know if I said it well) One of the requirements I said for having more allocation than /22 from RIPE was exactly that. Not only having an IPv6 allocation, not only having that allocation (or a chunk) announced. I said to have it in really production. From core network to customer cpe when supported, Dual-Stacking them. As you said, investing in IPv4 is investing into a dead technology. We dont want to spend lots of money and work in a dead technology. We spend money on new hardware that supports IPv6 and time doing it work. Best Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jul 3 15:38:57 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 15:38:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> Daniel - On 02.07.2014 19:53, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > [...] > > As I understood, he said no, he said _nobody_ wants it when at this > time, only 6 ppl replied the thread. He expect not to come this proposal > so is knocking it down before I made it. if only you would start writing it up eventually - as I have recommended already on 30 Apr - in the light of what Jim and Sander have written here: what exactly, reasoning, outlook, pros & cons. Instead of trying to find allies for a yet completely rough sketch of what you have in mind. And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully unconvinced for the time being. Best, Carsten From datos at tvt-datos.es Thu Jul 3 16:52:14 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:52:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> Hi Carsten, Thank you for replying. El 03/07/2014 15:38, Carsten Schiefner escribi?: > Daniel - > > On 02.07.2014 19:53, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> [...] >> >> As I understood, he said no, he said _nobody_ wants it when at this >> time, only 6 ppl replied the thread. He expect not to come this proposal >> so is knocking it down before I made it. > > if only you would start writing it up eventually - as I have > recommended already on 30 Apr - in the light of what Jim and Sander > have written here: what exactly, reasoning, outlook, pros & cons. > > Instead of trying to find allies for a yet completely rough sketch of > what you have in mind. I'm not trying to find allies. As I know, this is not about allies and enemies. For sure, im not considering it that way. You recommended me to write up what policies to change, but I dont really know what policies and how should be changed for what I have in mind. Im a newbie in this specific world. Im here to find support on how to do it in the correct way. But all I read is like what Im triying to say/do/propose is crazyness and for some, I should be interned in a Psychiatric. But as I said, another RIR is doing just the same. Some RIPE IPRA said is not a bad idea what im talking about. Also a PDO told me if i was in the need of help, but I told to wait, since doing it without first discussing it here is like doing in the back of the community and I dont want that. > > And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully > unconvinced for the time being. Oh please, stop that. I just only said that 5 or 6 ppl is not consensous. If you all wish, I did the math. 7 (counting you) of 3000 is 0.23% and the list have more than 3k subscribers. Im not going that way because if we start with that, not a single proposal would be accepted. Please, dont take all my words literally. Best Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From gert at space.net Thu Jul 3 17:16:16 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:16:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140703151616.GU43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > Oh please, stop that. I just only said that 5 or 6 ppl is not > consensous. If you all wish, I did the math. 7 (counting you) of 3000 is > 0.23% and the list have more than 3k subscribers. Im not going that way > because if we start with that, not a single proposal would be accepted. You'll *have* to go that way, as this is the way RIPE policy making works. Only actual statements are evaluated, and if all you get is 7 people disagreeing with the idea, it does not matter if 100, 3000, or 5 million other people do not say anything about it. If you look at the archives, you'll see that it's quite different for different proposals - some ideas get much/only positive feedback right away (and in that case, 5 people telling us "yeah, go for it!" is also clear enough, as 2995 others do not find it necessary to say "I'm against it! stop!"), other ideas cause long discussions, eventually leading to the opponents being convinced - and yet other proposals come up, get strong headwind, and are withdrawn because it's clear that there is not enough support. This is not voting, this is "rough consensus", similar to RFC7282. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jan at go6.si Thu Jul 3 17:27:51 2014 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:27:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> On 03/07/14 15:38, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully > unconvinced for the time being. here's #8 :) Cheers, jan From Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com Thu Jul 3 17:32:50 2014 From: Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com (Robert.Guentensperger at swisscom.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:32:50 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de>,<53B57677.2080209@go6.si> Message-ID: <1325213641.423783.1404401572423.JavaMail.totemomail@ss002890.tauri.ch> And #9... Cheers, Robert > Am 03.07.2014 um 17:28 schrieb "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" : > >> On 03/07/14 15:38, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully >> unconvinced for the time being. > > here's #8 :) > > Cheers, jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5328 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Thu Jul 3 17:35:36 2014 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:35:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <1325213641.423783.1404401572423.JavaMail.totemomail@ss002890.tauri.ch> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <1325213641.423783.1404401572423.JavaMail.totemomail@ss002890.tauri.ch> Message-ID: On 3 July 2014 16:32, wrote: > And #9... > > Cheers, > Robert > >> Am 03.07.2014 um 17:28 schrieb "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" : >> >>> On 03/07/14 15:38, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >>> And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully >>> unconvinced for the time being. >> >> here's #8 :) +1 -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From jan at go6.si Thu Jul 3 17:36:04 2014 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:36:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B57864.7000503@go6.si> On 03/07/14 16:52, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > Oh please, stop that. I just only said that 5 or 6 ppl is not > consensous. If you all wish, I did the math. 7 (counting you) of 3000 is > 0.23% and the list have more than 3k subscribers. Im not going that way > because if we start with that, not a single proposal would be accepted. Dear Daniel, Don't get me wrong, but RIPE community works in slightly different way from what is probably your current understanding. Please, join us in London for RIPE69, learn how this community works and maybe after that you'll approach the process and discussion differently. Best regards, Jan From gert at space.net Thu Jul 3 17:38:25 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:38:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> Message-ID: <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:27:51PM +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 03/07/14 15:38, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > > And for the records: count me in as #7 if you wish - I remain fully > > unconvinced for the time being. > > here's #8 :) For the sake of general sanity: please stop *that*. I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account. As in: - who will get extra address space? exactly under which conditions? - why is this helping? - what will be the consequences to routing table size, address pool, newcomers to the market in 5, 10 years? Even with a very specific proposal on the table (which would not need to describe the specific paragraphs to be changed in the RIPE policy documents, just the very exact "rules" to be followed - think of it as an algorithm for people to follow), I'm not sure it will go anywhere, but it would at least address some of the feedback given so far. I do not think further comments basically repeating what has been said before will change the situation. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From datos at tvt-datos.es Thu Jul 3 17:54:17 2014 From: datos at tvt-datos.es (Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:54:17 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140703151616.GU43103@Space.Net> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> <20140703151616.GU43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B57CA9.6010507@tvt-datos.es> Hi, El 03/07/2014 17:16, Gert Doering escribi?: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:52:14PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> Oh please, stop that. I just only said that 5 or 6 ppl is not >> consensous. If you all wish, I did the math. 7 (counting you) of 3000 is >> 0.23% and the list have more than 3k subscribers. Im not going that way >> because if we start with that, not a single proposal would be accepted. > You'll *have* to go that way, as this is the way RIPE policy making works. > > Only actual statements are evaluated, and if all you get is 7 people > disagreeing with the idea, it does not matter if 100, 3000, or 5 million > other people do not say anything about it. > > If you look at the archives, you'll see that it's quite different for > different proposals - some ideas get much/only positive feedback right > away (and in that case, 5 people telling us "yeah, go for it!" is also > clear enough, as 2995 others do not find it necessary to say "I'm against > it! stop!"), other ideas cause long discussions, eventually leading to > the opponents being convinced - and yet other proposals come up, get > strong headwind, and are withdrawn because it's clear that there is not > enough support. > > This is not voting, this is "rough consensus", similar to RFC7282. You understand me wrong. Im saying just what you are saying. Not everybody on the list will vote, negative or positive. I know that and Im ok with that. Im not trying to do that way. I only said that if in 2 days, only a few said no there is no consensous. At least not only in 2 days of topic. When I started the topic, few months ago, as far I can remember I stopped it until IANA return the space and see if we reach a /8 (somebody said we will not be even close) and then see what we do about it. I have a mess with Thunderbird and it crashes everytime I search for the emails, so I cant copy&paste or take a look now (still trying) but I remember that. IANA returned the space, we now have more than a /8 what makes me think... Its then the last /8 proposal invalid since now we have more than a /8? Didnt read the full proposal, and to be honest, I'll probably cant understand it in their totallity so if anyone can answer me that would be awesome. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Internet y Telefon?a Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966190565 WEB: http://www.tvt.es Correo: datos at tvt-datos.es --AVISO LEGAL-- En cumplimiento de la Ley Org?nica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de protecci?n de datos de car?cter personal, se pone en conocimiento del destinatario del presente correo electr?nico, que los datos incluidos en este mensaje, est?n dirigidos exclusivamente al citado destinatario cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es la persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de env?o y se abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a borrarlo de inmediato. Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificaci?n, cancelaci?n y especificaci?n de los mismos, derechos que podr? hacer efectivos dirigi?ndose a Televisi?n Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Thu Jul 3 18:14:49 2014 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:14:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B 436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53B58179.2090007@schiefner.de> Hi Daniel, a good friend of mine - a lawyer - quite often tells me: "If in doubt, have a look at the relevant law." So in your case... On 03.07.2014 16:52, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > [...] You recommended me to > write up what policies to change, but I dont really know what policies > and how should be changed for what I have in mind. Im a newbie in this > specific world. ... I'd start with the RIPE document store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs As I don't really know what section might be the one, I go for all current documents: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/current-ripe-documents/all-current-ripe-documents As I strive down the list, ripe-606 "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" looks like a hit: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-606 Skipping the reasoning for all this in the first four chapters, I go straight to the fifth chapter "Policies and Guidelines for Allocations" at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-606#5 Here, part "5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs" looks as THE target for your proposal of text injection/deletion/modification. > Im here to find support on how to do it in the correct way. You have gotten according advice at least three times so far. > [...] Also a PDO told me if i was in the need of help, but I > told to wait, since doing it without first discussing it here is like > doing in the back of the community and I dont want that. Doing it "in the back of the community" as you are afraid of is simply impossible. You will be entering the community stage with a proper proposal - anything else is just preliminaries to it. Feeling the water temperature is OK. Discussing the water temperature is not. Either you let the cold water go to refill the tub with warmer one - or you add some hot water. Cheers, -C. From gert at space.net Fri Jul 4 00:08:07 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 00:08:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B57CA9.6010507@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B56E1E.60709@tvt-datos.es> <20140703151616.GU43103@Space.Net> <53B57CA9.6010507@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140703220807.GB43103@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 05:54:17PM +0200, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: > Its then the last /8 proposal invalid since now we have more > than a /8? It is not. The community consciously decided that as soon as the "last /8" policy change is activated, it will *stay*, and everything else is no longer valid. (And, to be precise, we removed everything else from the IPv4 policy earlier this year, because it is no longer relevant) > Didnt read the full proposal, and to be honest, I'll probably > cant understand it in their totallity so if anyone can answer me that > would be awesome. Do not read individual proposals to understand current policy as a whole. Reading proposals and mailing list threads helps understand how the policy ended up in it's current form, but each proposal will only cover specific areas, not "all of the policy". So to really see what is policy today, read the full policy document, currently ripe-606 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-606 as you'll see there is nothing left about "when we reach the last /8", as this has all been taken out after it was no longer relevant. *This* is the policy as it is in effect right now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Fri Jul 4 13:30:03 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:30:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> Hi, I've changed my email address in the list. El 03/07/2014 17:38, Gert Doering escribi?: > > I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback > that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed > out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account. > > As in: > > - who will get extra address space? exactly under which conditions? New LIRs created after 14th of September 2012 will recieve extra address up to another /22 (in lesser chunks) if they can: - Prove they really need the space, not only looking at assignements - In the cases of dhcp, the lease time are set to minimum possible without saturating their networks with dhcp messages. - Prove they have IPv6 5 star ripeness, IPv6 provisioned and deployed from the core network to customer (customers with compatible equipment should be able to connect with IPv6) > - why is this helping? Will help in giving time (determined by the LIR grow) to the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 to be the main protocol. In some cases it will give years, in others not so much but Im sure any time given will be appreciated. At this time, maybe 99% of new LIRs are not going to be big telcos with million customers so another 1024 address are giving they lot of time. > - what will be the consequences to routing table size, address pool, > newcomers to the market in 5, 10 years? This will only affect to new LIRs who started after 14th of September 2012 since they are the only ones having an unique allocation of /22 the address pool. I cant find how to see how many LIRs are being affected. The only graph I have found (https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs) dont let me know the exact numbers, but there are arround 1.5k to 2k LIRs. Taking the highest number, 2.000 LIRs and taking in consideration all of them meet the requirements is 2,048M address. Our current pool have arround 18M address, if all new LIRs from today request the 2 allocations thats makes the possibility of having arround 8857 new LIRs. Again, in the LIRs graph cant see it well but I think we have 1k LIRs year. Thats makes, in the "worst" of the cases, 8 years of available IP space without taking in count if IANA returns more space. I dont really know how can affect the routing table if we reduce the minimun allocation to /23 or /24 (/24 seems to be auto discarded as Gert Doering said in previous emails) but I know there are lots of /23 announces in routing tables so I think the impact is not going to be really high. > Even with a very specific proposal on the table (which would not need to > describe the specific paragraphs to be changed in the RIPE policy documents, > just the very exact "rules" to be followed - think of it as an algorithm > for people to follow), I'm not sure it will go anywhere, but it would at > least address some of the feedback given so far. > > I do not think further comments basically repeating what has been said > before will change the situation. Thanks Gert for stopping that. I really appreciate it, even as I started it by mistake. Hope I answered your questions in a good way. Please, I did quick maths with this, Im really busy today and for the next week, but If any of you see I have made a mistake in any number, please feel free to correct it. Also, feel free to make any changes. Kind Regards, -Daniel From gert at space.net Fri Jul 4 13:53:01 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 13:53:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > El 03/07/2014 17:38, Gert Doering escribi?: > > I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback > > that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed > > out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account. > > > > As in: > > > > - who will get extra address space? exactly under which conditions? > New LIRs created after 14th of September 2012 will recieve extra address > up to another /22 (in lesser chunks) if they can: > - Prove they really need the space, not only looking at assignements > - In the cases of dhcp, the lease time are set to minimum possible > without saturating their networks with dhcp messages. > - Prove they have IPv6 5 star ripeness, IPv6 provisioned and > deployed from the core network to customer (customers with compatible > equipment should be able to connect with IPv6) How can RIPE NCC IPRAs verify that these requirements are met? How can you prevent abuse? (Like, "all 1024 addresse must respond to ping!" - that's more easily achieved by faking it than if you connect real customers that have firewalls...) Rulese need to be a) easily verifable for someone not at your network, and b) not so easy to just circumvent. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Fri Jul 4 17:00:54 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:00:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> Hi, El 04/07/2014 13:53, Gert Doering escribi?: > How can RIPE NCC IPRAs verify that these requirements are met? > > How can you prevent abuse? (Like, "all 1024 addresse must respond to > ping!" - that's more easily achieved by faking it than if you connect > real customers that have firewalls...) > > Rulese need to be a) easily verifable for someone not at your network, > and b) not so easy to just circumvent. > Is that the only problem? Was hoping more... :) How was it done before? How ppl used to prove they needed more space? -Daniel From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:10:16 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:10:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: (As there is now a concrete proposal, I am replying again) On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > Is that the only problem? Was hoping more... :) IMO those are huge issues. > How was it done before? How ppl used to prove they needed more space? There was less incentive to cheat in the past. Now, there's all sorts of desperation and the issue will only become worse over time. I fear this approach will either create huge administrative burdens or be easy to exploit... Richard From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:11:33 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:11:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: PS: There is no automatic cut-off if reserve X is hit. Does this mean you are expecting the depletion rate to roughly double? If not, what other rate do you expect and how is that run-out planned? This would need to be part of such a proposal, imo. Richard From sander at steffann.nl Fri Jul 4 17:24:25 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:24:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, Op 4 jul. 2014, om 17:00 heeft Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) het volgende geschreven: > El 04/07/2014 13:53, Gert Doering escribi?: >> How can RIPE NCC IPRAs verify that these requirements are met? >> >> How can you prevent abuse? (Like, "all 1024 addresse must respond to >> ping!" - that's more easily achieved by faking it than if you connect >> real customers that have firewalls...) >> >> Rulese need to be a) easily verifable for someone not at your network, >> and b) not so easy to just circumvent. > > Is that the only problem? Was hoping more... :) Probably no the only one, just the first one :) It's one of the major problems here. Almost everybody has need for more addresses, so there need to be clear and implementable rules about what is 'enough need'. Is 'I have 500 customers that don't want to be behind NAT' good enough? > How was it done before? How ppl used to prove they needed more space? Show which assignments you are going to make, why the assignments need to be the size you give them (how many devices are connected etc). Most of the policy for this has been removed as the need to document all this became an unnecessary bureaucratic burden when the current policy gives every LIR a fixed /22 allocation if they need any IPv4 addresses anyway. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 for the clean-up policy. One of the things people seem concerned about is re-introducing that bureaucratic burden again. Because how can you prove you need more than a /22 when you don't have to justify how you used the /22? You could then just use up the /22 in any way you like and then demand 'I now need more'. There are more side effects to giving LIRs more than a single /22 than you think :) Cheers, Sander From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jul 4 17:35:44 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:35:44 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E39E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: [...] > Again, in the LIRs graph cant see it well but I think we have 1k LIRs > year. Thats makes, in the "worst" of the cases, 8 years of available IP > space without taking in count if IANA returns more space. Allocations made under the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA are scheduled to take place every six months, as required in the policy. The formula for making the allocations has been put into software which has been published: https://github.com/icann/ipv4-recovery-algorithm What cannot be predicted is whether the RIRs will be returning more address space to the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space). However, if that does happen you can run the published software and see exactly how it will be distributed. Regards, Leo Vegoda From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Mon Jul 7 12:11:10 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:11:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53BA723E.8010606@tvt-datos.es> Hi all, El 04/07/2014 17:10, Richard Hartmann escribi?: > (As there is now a concrete proposal, I am replying again) > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) > wrote: >> Is that the only problem? Was hoping more... :) > > IMO those are huge issues. Haha, of course, that was a joke. > >> How was it done before? How ppl used to prove they needed more space? > > There was less incentive to cheat in the past. Now, there's all sorts > of desperation and the issue will only become worse over time. > > > I fear this approach will either create huge administrative burdens or > be easy to exploit... > > PS: There is no automatic cut-off if reserve X is hit. Does this mean > you are expecting the depletion rate to roughly double? If not, what > other rate do you expect and how is that run-out planned? This would > need to be part of such a proposal, imo. Nice suggestion. As I said, the depletion in the worst of the cases and not taking in count if IANA returns more space in the future was ~8 years from now. And as you said, there should be a "cut-off" for reserve. I'll re-do the "proposal" as soon as I can. About "How to prove" problem, let me think about It but its very welcome anyone with a suggestion for this or any other point in the proposal. > > > Richard > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Mon Jul 7 12:13:58 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:13:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E39E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E39E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <53BA72E6.2010001@tvt-datos.es> Hi Leo, Thanks for your reply. Since nobody knows if IANA is going to give more or how much space to RIRs from the returned pool, I was not taking in count IANAs possibility of returning space. If IANA, every six months, returns more space it will give more time till full depletion. Regards, El 04/07/2014 17:35, Leo Vegoda escribi?: > Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > > [...] > >> Again, in the LIRs graph cant see it well but I think we have 1k LIRs >> year. Thats makes, in the "worst" of the cases, 8 years of available IP >> space without taking in count if IANA returns more space. > > Allocations made under the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA are scheduled to take place every six months, as required in the policy. The formula for making the allocations has been put into software which has been published: https://github.com/icann/ipv4-recovery-algorithm > > What cannot be predicted is whether the RIRs will be returning more address space to the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space). However, if that does happen you can run the published software and see exactly how it will be distributed. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Mon Jul 7 12:45:53 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:45:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy Message-ID: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> Hi all, This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. If they dont need it anymore, it should be returned to RIPE. Only allowed transfers of /22 from last /8 should be: - When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now. This will help to dont especulate with the last /8 and will help slowing the depletion. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From garry at nethinks.com Mon Jul 7 13:21:38 2014 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:21:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > Hi all, > > This is another topic about Last /8. > Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the > 185/8 > For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more > or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, > 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? Generally, I'd +1 this ... Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP space might be permissable ... Maybe a rule could be defined that states something like this: (rough draft, just my 0.02?) Any /22 assignment from the last /8 can not be transfered to a different LIR. Upon losing LIR status or being sold/merged to another LIR results in the assignment being withdrawn within a reasonable time frame to allow for ordered migration. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case decision if: * the LIR is being sold/merged to another LIR and has additional, older IPv4 assignments that are also fully transfered (no partial transfer) at the same time to the same LIR * the LIR is being sold/merged to another LIR and does not hold any other IPv4 spaces and has been operational using the IP space for longer than 2 years; usage has to be proved based on routing records or similar In either case, detailed information regarding the technical need for the transferal of the /22 to a different LIR has to be provided in order for an exception to the non-transferal rule to be granted by RIPE NCC. .... something like that would on the one hand prevent for-profit schemes and depleting the /8 pool unnecessarily, while the exception would allow legitimate uses without having to renumber (which may cause license problems, and possibly lots of work on the side of the end customers, though I doubt that static resources would make sense using last /8 IPs ...) Either way, transferal should always require a full transfer of an LIR to another ... if the old LIR is simply going out of business (either completely, or dropping their ISP branch), there is no technical requirement to warrant a transfer of the IPs to a different LIR, as the customers will most likely have to do some reconfiguration anyway ... (like new lines, etc.) -garry From tore at fud.no Mon Jul 7 15:19:51 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:19:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> * Daniel Baeza > Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 > For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more or > less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, > 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? > > IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2. This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing. Tore From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 15:46:35 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:46:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing. Just to play devil's advocate: What happens if I * have LIR A * create LIR B * get LIR B's /22 * sell LIR B's /22 to LIR A * close down LIR B * create LIR C... Under current regulations, this seems to be feasible and allowed. I am not saying this needs fixing (today); just tossing an idea into the ring to see what happens. Richard From leo.vegoda at icann.org Mon Jul 7 16:20:47 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 07:20:47 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53BA72E6.2010001@tvt-datos.es> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E39E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53BA72E6.2010001@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E3B4@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Daniel, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: [...] > Thanks for your reply. Since nobody knows if IANA is going to give more > or how much space to RIRs from the returned pool, I was not taking in > count IANAs possibility of returning space. This community helped decide the policy that ICANN, as the IANA functions operator, implements. In general, the policies for allocating Internet Number Resources to the RIRs are deterministic. Kind regards, Leo From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Mon Jul 7 16:23:21 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:23:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> Message-ID: <53BAAD59.30507@tvt-datos.es> Hi Tore, Thanks for your reply :) El 07/07/2014 15:19, Tore Anderson escribi?: > Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. > Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease > only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2. > > This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing. This is the Public Listing Service. As far I know, you dont need to be there to sell/trade your allocations, so we didnt really know how many /22's are in sell. About the "lease only". This is what is publicity in the Listing Service, but as far we know, can be at sell too. Also, this is another kind of "bad use"* of the last /22. The LIR who owns that block dont need it. If dont need it, it should be returned to RIPE. This is what im talking about, returning not needed space of last /8 to RIPE, or at least dont let them to make money directly from the /22 in lease or sell mode. Im talking about direct money from /22, not talking about the ISP or Hosting company who "temporay lease" IP to their customers. And to be honest, we dont need to wait till is a problem. Because when It is a problem, usually is too late to do something as you will not be able to recover those space since it has been sold when it was permitted. (*) Yes, I know, there isnt a "bad use" rule in RIPE, but that doesnt mean there should be. :) -Daniel -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Mon Jul 7 16:26:09 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:26:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E3B4@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <00c001cf95e4$41a57bc0$c4f07340$@a2b-internet.com> <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E39E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53BA72E6.2010001@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67E3B4@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <53BAAE01.6000808@tvt-datos.es> Hi Leo, El 07/07/2014 16:20, Leo Vegoda escribi?: > Hi Daniel, > > > This community helped decide the policy that ICANN, as the IANA functions operator, implements. In general, the policies for allocating Internet Number Resources to the RIRs are deterministic. Yeah I know. What I mean is we really dont know if IANA is going to give more address to RIRs since nobody knows if IANA is going to recieve more "unused" space. For that I didnt have in count what IANAs is going to do. I dont know if im expressing well or otherwise Im not understanding you. Kind Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From gert at space.net Mon Jul 7 16:57:37 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:57:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140707145737.GG51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:46:35PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > What happens if I > > * have LIR A > * create LIR B > * get LIR B's /22 > * sell LIR B's /22 to LIR A > * close down LIR B > * create LIR C... > > Under current regulations, this seems to be feasible and allowed. True. Maybe the issue is that the sum of (work+price tag) is not interesting enough compared to other avenues. Someone mentioned that /22s are not interesting for brokers ("too much work, too little money")... Just speculating. To be honest, I expected to see quite a bit of this, but it seems to be "not happening yet". I know that NCC RS is keeping an eye on the /22 burn rate, and I think we'll hear about any particular trends at the next RIPE meeting... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at fud.no Mon Jul 7 18:02:31 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:02:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BAAD59.30507@tvt-datos.es> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> <53BAAD59.30507@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <53BAC497.9030308@fud.no> * Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) > El 07/07/2014 15:19, Tore Anderson escribi?: > >> Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. >> Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease >> only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2. >> >> This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing. > > This is the Public Listing Service. As far I know, you dont need to be > there to sell/trade your allocations, so we didnt really know how many > /22's are in sell. All transfers made under ripe-606 section 5.5 are listed on the RIPE NCC's web site. There have been a few of them, but I see nothing suggesting that this is being done in a repeated and abusive manner. http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-of-transfers > About the "lease only". This is what is publicity in the Listing > Service, but as far we know, can be at sell too. Also, this is another > kind of "bad use"* of the last /22. The LIR who owns that block dont > need it. The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need. Furthermore, RIPE policy does not dictate what kind of business models the LIRs may have. I would assume that in the end, most commercial organisations will distribute the costs of running the LIR across all of its End Users, with a profit margin that makes the entire endeavour worth while. I see nothing wrong with this at all. > And to be honest, we dont need to wait till is a problem. Because when > It is a problem, usually is too late to do something as you will not be > able to recover those space since it has been sold when it was permitted. > > (*) Yes, I know, there isnt a "bad use" rule in RIPE, but that doesnt > mean there should be. :) I strongly feel that we should not spend time bloating the policy with rules against every imaginable "bad use" under the sun. If - and only if! - there is a real problem somewhere, then let's fix it. Tore From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 18:06:03 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:06:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BAC497.9030308@fud.no> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> <53BAAD59.30507@tvt-datos.es> <53BAC497.9030308@fud.no> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to > End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number > resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number > resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need. We are sliding off topic, but I have a ton of IPs I need for ourselves. Life wouldn't be fun without DNS and other services, plus a myriad of internal tools, etc. Richard -- Richard From gert at space.net Mon Jul 7 19:03:26 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 19:03:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA9E77.2030506@fud.no> <53BAAD59.30507@tvt-datos.es> <53BAC497.9030308@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140707170326.GI51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:06:03PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > > The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to > > End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number > > resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number > > resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need. > > We are sliding off topic, but I have a ton of IPs I need for > ourselves. Life wouldn't be fun without DNS and other services, plus a > myriad of internal tools, etc. Technically, this is not "the LIR". This is "your ISP business", which is a user of your LIR (and in the days before large AWs and INFRA-AW, assignment for that had to be approved by the NCC just like any other customer assignment). That "the LIR" and "the ISP business" happen to be run by the same people quite often doesn't mean "the LIR needs numbers". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 08:37:27 2014 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:37:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This is another topic about Last /8. >> Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the >> 185/8 >> For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more >> or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, >> 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? > Generally, I'd +1 this ... > > Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP > space might be permissable ... In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate reasons to allow such transfer. And is it really such a big problem? What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to they try to grow? (and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From ripe at opteamax.de Tue Jul 8 09:10:53 2014 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax RIPE-Team) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:10:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> Hi all, I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely. Instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically. I know at least one LIR holding a /14 that he requested 5 years ago and never announced since then (and actually has about one /15 free space (amount of IPs, not in one chunk) in his other allocations. The legitime reasons against this mentioned (merger of LIRs) are exceptions to be proven individually by the RIPE NCC staff. But also here couple of guidelines IMHO need to be defined, e.g. no merging of LIRs younger than two years ... in the moment trading and holding IPv4 for profit reasons looses it's attractiveness, the exhaustion would become pretty relaxed. BR Jens PS: sorry for TOFU, mobile client makes it difficult to quote properly :( On 8. Juli 2014 08:37:27 MESZ, "Roger J?rgensen" wrote: >On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown >wrote: >> On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is another topic about Last /8. >>> Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from >the >>> 185/8 >>> For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more >>> or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets >say, >>> 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? >> Generally, I'd +1 this ... >> >> Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP >> space might be permissable ... > >In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate >reasons to allow such transfer. >And is it really such a big problem? > >What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and >customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to >they try to grow? >(and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that) From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Jul 8 09:59:36 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:59:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <53BBA4E8.70906@tvt-datos.es> Hi, As I said in my first email opening the thread: >- When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs >the transfer should be allowed >- More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I >cant remember it now. For sure there will be legitimate transfers. Regards, El 08/07/2014 8:37, Roger J?rgensen escribi?: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: >> On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is another topic about Last /8. >>> Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the >>> 185/8 >>> For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000? (more >>> or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, >>> 8?/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000? >> Generally, I'd +1 this ... >> >> Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP >> space might be permissable ... > > In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate > reasons to allow such transfer. > And is it really such a big problem? > > What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and > customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to > they try to grow? > (and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that) > > > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From jan at go6.si Tue Jul 8 10:35:07 2014 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:35:07 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> Message-ID: <53BBAD3B.3070709@go6.si> On 08/07/14 09:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team wrote: > Hi all, > > I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely. Not advisable. While many people in this community would like to see that LIRs returns the non-used space to the available pool instead of selling it - this is likely not going to happen too often. If you forbid selling IP resources - it will happen anyway in uncontrolled manner and uncontrolled environment - let's call it a black market... and this is exactly what we are trying to avoid here. Cheers, Jan From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Jul 8 10:47:27 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:47:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> Message-ID: <53BBB01F.9090607@tvt-datos.es> Hi, El 08/07/2014 9:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team escribi?: > Hi all, > > I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely. Instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically. > Dude...dont wake up the devil! (jk) Im with you about returning no needed space. Since you didnt bougth the space to the RIR, you shouldnt be allowed to sell it when you dont need it anymore. Also, not announcing an allocation on a period of time can be understood as you dont need it then go to 1 Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Tue Jul 8 11:18:10 2014 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:18:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: <53BA723E.8010606@tvt-datos.es> References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> <53BA723E.8010606@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: At Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:11:10 +0200, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: > > And as you said, there should be a "cut-off" for reserve. What I understand is that we have reached the cut-off point and are using the reserve up, one /22 at a time, according to consensus-based policy. I'll be happy to be corrected in case I'm mistaken. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly From ak at list.ak.cx Tue Jul 8 11:28:16 2014 From: ak at list.ak.cx (Andre Keller) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:28:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Question about Last /8 Policy In-Reply-To: <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> References: <53BA7A61.30001@tvt-datos.es> <53BA82C2.4080200@nethinks.com> <3c420d50-bf1e-4de3-9efa-43a8ae23ef29@email.android.com> Message-ID: <53BBB9B0.7020108@list.ak.cx> Hi, On 08.07.2014 09:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team wrote: > instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically. there are legitimate uses of IP addresses that are not routed on the public internet. The policy does not require address space to be routed on the public internet. regards andre From sander at steffann.nl Tue Jul 8 12:15:04 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:15:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <628BDDA4-9D9E-4A9C-85FE-EDC329517EA4@steffann.nl> <53B41EBF.90400@tvt-datos.es> <53B436F6.3030700@tvt-datos.es> <2971F87D-A3D3-4329-9541-6F94DAFBE9E9@steffann.nl> <53B44704.5050201@tvt-datos.es> <53B55CF1.1020205@schiefner.de> <53B57677.2080209@go6.si> <20140703153825.GY43103@Space.Net> <53B6903B.6070405@tvt-datos.es> <20140704115301.GG51793@Space.Net> <53B6C1A6.3000609@tvt-datos.es> <53BA723E.8010606@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: Hi Niall, Op 8 jul. 2014, om 11:18 heeft Niall O'Reilly het volgende geschreven: > At Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:11:10 +0200, > Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote: >> >> And as you said, there should be a "cut-off" for reserve. > > What I understand is that we have reached the cut-off point > and are using the reserve up, one /22 at a time, according to > consensus-based policy. > > I'll be happy to be corrected in case I'm mistaken. You are not mistaken. Cheers, Sander From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Jul 10 11:58:51 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:58:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 8 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Jul 11 10:21:11 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:21:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From job at instituut.net Fri Jul 11 10:54:34 2014 From: job at instituut.net (Job Snijders) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:54:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> Dear all, Thank you Marco for taking the time to review this policy proposal. Much appreciated. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, > "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 August 2014. Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, especially given the title of this policy proposal. Section 2.0 of RIPE-525 (the current policy) states: "In order to help decrease global routing complexity, a new AS Number should be used only if a new external routing policy is required, see RFC1930." RFC1930 in turn lists some cases where an AS assigment is not needed, especially in context of single-homing. Marco, am I correct in assuming this reasoning has been followed? Section C: Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a time period allowed for multihoming"? Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. Kind regards, Job From aleheux at kobo.com Fri Jul 11 11:28:55 2014 From: aleheux at kobo.com (Alex Le Heux) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:28:55 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marco, The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite guidance from the RIPE community? What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? There?s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ?guided", from informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the articles of association, and many steps in between ;) Regards, Alex Le Heux On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" wrote: > >Dear colleagues, > > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >"Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been >published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >has also been published. > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft > > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 August 2014. > > >Regards, > >Marco Schmidt >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > > From zsako at iszt.hu Fri Jul 11 14:20:04 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:20:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> References: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> Message-ID: <53BFD674.50908@iszt.hu> Dear Job, > Section C: > > Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a > time period allowed for multihoming"? This concept of "Potential Future Multihoming" appears in the Rationale, part "a. Arguments supporting the proposal", second bullet point: "A network might not be multihomed today, but might want to prepare its infrastructure so it can multihome at a moment's notice, or have some form of mobility in terms of suppliers." My understanding is, and I think this is how the RIPE NCC interpreted it as well, that the requester may simply state that their network is expected to become multi-homed in the future, and this would be a good reason (i.e. one that the RIPE NCC should accept) for receiving an ASN. If there is no time limit when the requester is expected to become multi-homed, and/or the RIPE NCC is not expected to check this and ask for the ASN to be returned if the network is not multi-homed by that date, then I feel this part of the proposed policy is equivalent to saying that you simply have to ask for an ASN and the RIPE NCC must assign you one. Am I wrong? If this is how the policy proposal has to be interpreted, I do not support it. Best regards, Janos > Regarding validation of multi-homing: given the nature of BGP it is > extremely hard to assess whether somebody is multi-homed or not. I would > not expect the RIPE NCC to validate if somebody is multihomed, Relying > on possibly forged "show bgp sum"'s runs counter to the spirit of the > proposal: truth & accuracy are most important. > > Kind regards, > > Job > From saku at ytti.fi Fri Jul 11 14:57:32 2014 From: saku at ytti.fi (Saku Ytti) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:57:32 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: <53BFD674.50908@iszt.hu> References: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> <53BFD674.50908@iszt.hu> Message-ID: On 11 July 2014 15:20, Janos Zsako wrote: Hi Janos, > My understanding is, and I think this is how the RIPE NCC interpreted it as > well, that the requester may simply state that their network is expected to > become multi-homed in the future, and this would be a good reason (i.e. one > that the RIPE NCC should accept) for receiving an ASN. > > If there is no time limit when the requester is expected to become > multi-homed, > and/or the RIPE NCC is not expected to check this and ask for the ASN to be > returned if the network is not multi-homed by that date, then I feel this > part of the proposed policy is equivalent to saying that you simply have to > ask for an ASN and the RIPE NCC must assign you one. > > Am I wrong? Yes. Option for multihoming easily does not imply it will ever happen, just that if need arises it's simple. Same goes for never having plans to multihome, but want to have easy, independent ability to switch providers on demand. You may also benefit from public ASN in scenarios where it's not even visible in the Internet (same goes for public IP addresses). Personally I would have wanted YRC to ASN and have no rules, lack of YRC make the policy soft and ambiguous, but I've bene told this is not a problem as many other RIPE policies are soft and ambiguous. In practice many RIPE members lie in ASN applications, because their use-case, which is commonly agreed to be valid, is not covered by current policy. This policy intends to align implied policy with written policy. I'd love to hear suggestion how to make it harder without YRC. Should there be strict list of valid use-cases? Should we expect RIPE NCC hostmasters to have understanding what is common/accepted use-case? > > If this is how the policy proposal has to be interpreted, I do not support > it. > -- ++ytti From andrea at ripe.net Fri Jul 11 15:46:19 2014 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:46:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53BFEAAB.1070409@ripe.net> Hi Alex, When RS has policy interpretation doubts we ask for feedback to the community via mailing lists or during the AP WG session at a RIPE meeting. In this specific case however it is not about policy interpretation, but about receiving the tools necessary to properly implement the community policy. For this reason we would prefer the requested guidance to be part of the RIPE document, which is the authoritative source of information for both the RIPE NCC and the LIR when a resource request is being evaluated. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC On 11/7/14 11:28, Alex Le Heux wrote: > Hi Marco, > > The impact analysis contains this phrase several times: > > In order to implement this proposal, the RIPE NCC would need definite > guidance from the RIPE community? > > > What form would the RIPE NCC like this guidance to have? > > There?s a whole range of ways that the RIPE NCC can be ?guided", from > informal hints during a RIPE Meeting social all the way to changes in the > articles of association, and many steps in between ;) > > Regards, > > Alex Le Heux > > > > On 2014-07-11, 10:21 , "Marco Schmidt" wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-03, >> "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has been >> published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >> has also been published. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft >> >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 11 August 2014. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> > > From tore at fud.no Sun Jul 13 11:06:44 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:06:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> References: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> Message-ID: <53C24C24.8010308@fud.no> * Job Snijders > Section A.1 of the impact analysis might seem counter-intuitive to some, > especially given the title of this policy proposal. Indeed. Considering the title of the proposal, and the fact the entire proposed new policy document has 0 occurrences of the word "multihoming", I can't wrap my head around how the IA could end up claiming that the requirement for multihoming is not removed. > Regarding "Potential Future Multihoming", why does the RIPE NCC need "a > time period allowed for multihoming"? Agreed. After all, the word used is "potential" - so it wouldn't be a certainty, but an eventuality. AIUI, in this case obtaining an ASN would be akin to obtaining insurance. Also I find it somewhat surprising that the NCC seems to require an exhaustive list of what all the valid uses of an ASN is. The NCC has, after all, for a very long time delegated IP addresses to folks that have a valid use for them - without there being any exhaustive list of valid technical justifications for IP addresses present in policy. In any case, the IA ends by mentioning the possibility of the NCC preparing a procedural document that lists the various justifications for ASNs that will be approved. I think this is a reasonable approach. The list could start out with containing 1) multihoming, 2) anything from RFC1930, and 3) any other example from 2014-03's supporting notes; and be amended as required based on light-weight consultation with the community/wg (as opposed to requiring full PDP cycles every time). Tore From tore at fud.no Sun Jul 13 11:11:22 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:11:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53C24D3A.6090902@fud.no> * Marco Schmidt > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 ?RIPE NCC Registration Services expects that this proposal will have a very positive effect on the accuracy and consistency of the RIPE Registry as the resource holders will have more incentive to properly request and document transfers of PI assignments.? And that's why we have a registry in the first place, is it not? +1 Tore From ggiannou at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 21:50:21 2014 From: ggiannou at gmail.com (George Giannousopoulos) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:50:21 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <53C24D3A.6090902@fud.no> References: <53C24D3A.6090902@fud.no> Message-ID: Hello all, The ability to transfer PI space is long awaited by the community, but I'm a bit skeptical about it.. AFAIK there is a project active in RIPE NCC, which is about retrieving unused PI space. If I'm not wrong, that space is still reserved and in quarantine. Wouldn't this policy change, affect the rate at which PI assignments are returned to RIPE NCC? I believe that the current "unofficial" PI space trade is because there is no other way to get it legitimately. Why not consider to re-allow PI assignments from the returned space, instead of allowing PI transfers? The unused PI space will eventually be returned to RIPE NCC, isn't it? As I see it, this policy change rewards the end users who don't fulfill their contractual obligations and don't return their unused PI space. What would we say to those users who decided to honor their contract? The only benefit I see is that more PI space will change hands, since the end user has financial benefit to do that. Of course that will lead to great de-aggregation and work load for the RIPE NCC.. So, I don't agree nor oppose to this proposal yet. I'll wait to see the comments of the rest in order to make my mind. Regards, George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 07:37:13 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 07:37:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool In-Reply-To: References: <5343DD47.7060106@tvt-datos.es> <534CEA02.5000700@tvt-datos.es> <534D1F01.4070307@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <534D5196.40700@tvt-datos.es> <534DA5A7.60208@fud.no> <39CB3184-C6F4-46A1-A3BA-6E5BA0529FD9@steffann.nl> <534FE465.7050605@tvt-datos.es> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30956@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53505D93.7080104@velea.eu> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30978@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30A64@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <53578DA5.3060707@schiefner.de> <5357E8F9.9090100@fud.no> <5357EAD0.6060903@fud.no> <000001cf5f27$5e5b78d0$1b126a70$@a2b-internet.com> <5360C8C2.9030501@tvt-datos.es> <5360CE61.6000806@schiefner.de> <5360CF17.6050207@tvt-datos.es> <53B4FE60.7020303@kebab.org.pl> Message-ID: I'm nearly sorry for this late tackle, but I'll just use my honeymoon as a valid excuse. ;) On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > can we have a wiki, https://whack-a-mole.ripe.net/... so we do not have > to repeat these discussions? we could just point to the last time we > went through this. > > That's how I felt when the subject came up earlier this year, and I haven't been here long. However, new list members should be able to address their questions and worries in some way. Regretfully, I don't see an easy way to point to the mailing list archives for the discussion either, because there have been several (many, as far as I can tell) discussions, but perhaps the list of archived proposals would give Daniel a certain overview of what's been going on in the past years, as well as access to the assessments of each policy proposal. It's a huge task to go through these, to be sure, but I think it's necessary when Daniel wants to change the policy that he's at least familiar with the past 4-5 years' worth of policy proposals did and didn't evolve into the current policy. Archived proposals: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-policy-proposals/ Current proposals: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals A few examples that may be relevant to Daniel's concern: There is, of course, "Allocations from the last /8" from 2010 (before my time): https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02 The "run out fairly" policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 There is the policy proposal about PI assignments from the last /8, which was withdrawn: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 (Discussions: https://www.google.no/search?q=address-policy-wg+archives+PI+Assignments+from+the+last+%2F8 ) There is the proposal about removing the requirement for a minimum allocation size: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 Also the post-depletion adjustment to the policy, which also saw some relevant discussion, particularly concerning "need", which I think bears some relevance to Daniel's arguments about how to tell whether someone should get an additional /24: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 There are other proposals which may be relevant, the above are just examples. I would wish that each proposal had links to archived discussion threads, but that's just wishful thinking now ? Google is our friend in finding these old discussions, based on e.g. the policy text title and key phrases in the policy change text. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 10:22:04 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:22:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments) In-Reply-To: <53C24C24.8010308@fud.no> References: <53bf9ee5.644bb40a.5248.4f66SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20140711085434.GC46343@Eleanor.local> <53C24C24.8010308@fud.no> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: > > In any case, the IA ends by mentioning the possibility of the NCC > preparing a procedural document that lists the various justifications > for ASNs that will be approved. I think this is a reasonable approach. > The list could start out with containing 1) multihoming, 2) anything > from RFC1930, and 3) any other example from 2014-03's supporting notes; > and be amended as required based on light-weight consultation with the > community/wg (as opposed to requiring full PDP cycles every time). > > Nice. Also, this would certainly make it easier for those who wonder what they should put in their request. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jul 28 13:07:08 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:07:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus after Last Call on 2014-01 (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4) Message-ID: <2D09CCA5-329A-4DC9-9F5E-6185CC6F9C12@steffann.nl> Hello working group, As per the RIPE PDP in ripe-614 the decision whether a proposal has reached consensus is now done by the working group chairs of the WG that discussed the proposal. We will give an overview of what occurred in the working group and explain how we came to our conclusions based on that. When this proposal went from Review phase to Last Call this was based on this analysis by the working group chairs: > During the discussion phase there was already general support for this policy proposal. Some people asked for the minimum size of sub-allocations too be included in this policy proposal as well. This was done in version 2 of the proposal text. > > After going to the review phase the feedback was all positive, with 8 people explicitly stating their support: > - Tore Anderson > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Piotr Strzyzewski > - Sascha Luck > - Jens Ott > - George Giannousopoulos > - Andreas Larsen > - Sebastian Wiesinger > > The announcement of the start of the review phase was sent out on the 15th of May, and all messages indicating support came in immediately after. Since then the mailing list has been quiet about 2014-01, which we see as a sign of consensus. During Last Call four more people stated their clear support (on 16 and 17 June) - Elvis Daniel Velea (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Erik Bais (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Janos Zsako (repeated his support from the discussion phase) - Daniel Stolpe There were no other postings during Last Calls. Based on the comments received in review and last call phase, we have decided that consensus has indeed been reached. We therefore ask the RIPE NCC to implement this policy. If you disagree with this decision please contact the working group chairs (preferably on this public mailing list and otherwise by sending mail to apwg-chairs at ripe.net). Should that not resolve the problem then you can appeal to the WG chairs collective (as per section 4 of ripe-614). Your working group chairs, Gert D?ring and Sander Steffann From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 14:57:38 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:57:38 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers Message-ID: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> Hello All, don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly touches IP/ASN management, of course. Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Mon Jul 28 15:34:36 2014 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:34:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> Message-ID: an interesting loaded question ... from a legacy Soviet union address ? one would have thought it be more appropriate from a .ua address ? On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly > touches IP/ASN management, of course. > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? > > -- Kindest regards, Tom Smyth Mobile: +353 87 6193172 --------------------------------- PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergey at devnull.ru Mon Jul 28 15:38:05 2014 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:38:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> Hi Max, why didn't you ask about Abkhazia, Southern Osetia, Kosovo or Gaza strip? Why you're raising this question in APWG but not in NCC Services WG? -- Sergey Monday, July 28, 2014, 2:57:38 PM, you wrote: MT> Hello All, MT> don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly MT> touches IP/ASN management, of course. MT> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) MT> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 15:47:08 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:47:08 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D6545C.1050303@ukraine.su> that's the historic e-mail ;) So what can you say essentially? I think RIPE NCC works under Dutch law, so if The Netherlands don't accept Crimea annexion - RIPE NCC should not accept these papers. In other case, RIPE NCC very probably violates Dutch law. Am I right? On 28.07.14 16:34, Tom Smyth wrote: > > an interesting loaded question ... from a legacy Soviet union address ? > one would have thought it be more appropriate from a .ua address ? > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Max Tulyev > wrote: > > Hello All, > > don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly > touches IP/ASN management, of course. > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? > > > > > -- > Kindest regards, > Tom Smyth > > Mobile: +353 87 6193172 > --------------------------------- > PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL > This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. > The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that > any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic > transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic > mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not > the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or > acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or > acceptance must be communicated in > writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before > opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss > or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments. From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jul 28 15:47:24 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:47:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> Message-ID: Hi, > Why you're raising this question in APWG but not in NCC Services WG? I think this is a good suggestion as this question is more about who the RIPE NCC provides services to and not so much about the actual address policy. Cheers, Sander From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 15:53:08 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:53:08 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> Message-ID: <53D655C4.8050603@ukraine.su> Hi Sergey, thank you, that's a good point! NCC services WG would be a good place. On 28.07.14 16:38, Sergey Myasoedov wrote: > Hi Max, > why didn't you ask about Abkhazia, Southern Osetia, Kosovo or Gaza strip? > > Why you're raising this question in APWG but not in NCC Services WG? > > > -- > Sergey > > Monday, July 28, 2014, 2:57:38 PM, you wrote: > > MT> Hello All, > > MT> don't know the correct mail list to raise this question, but it directly > MT> touches IP/ASN management, of course. > > MT> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > MT> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? > > > > > > > > From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Mon Jul 28 15:55:59 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:55:59 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> References: <53D648C2.4030801@ukraine.su> <895560943.20140728153805@devnull.ru> Message-ID: <870217ec69984c4fe63f9cb0776ca14e@deltahost.com.ua> Hello. > why didn't you ask about Abkhazia, Southern Osetia, Kosovo or Gaza > strip? Probably because Abkhazia, Southern Osetia, Kosovo or Gaza strip is not part of his country occupied by Russia? Probably because he servicing Ukraine region? > Why you're raising this question in APWG but not in NCC Services WG? He said he don't know where to ask this question. It would be a nice if you can help to determine it. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Jul 28 16:21:14 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:21:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 Proposal Accepted (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached, and the proposal for a change to RIPE Document ripe-606, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", has been accepted by the RIPE community. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-621 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-621 The RIPE NCC has already begun preparations to implement this policy proposal. We estimate it may take a few weeks to make these changes and fully implement the policy proposal. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided their input. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Mon Jul 28 17:25:30 2014 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:25:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: > Hello All, > > Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) > issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? Max, all, the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation provided by our members. This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national authority the member chooses. cheers, Axel From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 19:57:12 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:57:12 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> Message-ID: <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? On 28.07.14 18:25, Axel Pawlik wrote: > On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) >> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? > > Max, all, > > the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership > organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number > resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation > provided by our members. > > This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that > the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have > national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, > so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national > authority the member chooses. > > cheers, Axel > > From gert at space.net Mon Jul 28 20:04:51 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:04:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:57:12PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: > So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, > i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? Max, what are you trying to achieve? There is no good answer to that question. Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people decided to be part of Russia all on their own (which sounds quite legit to me), in a democratic decision - or it was an annection by Russia (not overly legit, but has happened in the past). This is not something the RIPE NCC can solve, and I think Axel's answer was as salomonic as possible: the NCC serves it's *members*, not any government in particular. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marty at akamai.com Mon Jul 28 20:09:05 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:09:05 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <19127CA5-4901-41EF-B5CE-08913C160E6B@akamai.com> RIPE said they are neutral. I interpret that to mean that if a member chooses one over the other, that is up to them. There are a variety of reasons why one might choose one over the other, including no other choice but to do so. That shouldn't prevent someone from getting the resources they need. Best, -M< On Jul 28, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Max Tulyev wrote: > So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, > i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? > > On 28.07.14 18:25, Axel Pawlik wrote: >> On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) >>> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? >> >> Max, all, >> >> the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership >> organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number >> resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation >> provided by our members. >> >> This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that >> the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have >> national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, >> so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national >> authority the member chooses. >> >> cheers, Axel >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gert at space.net Mon Jul 28 20:18:53 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:18:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> Message-ID: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. So, tell me your thoughts, please. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ak at list.ak.cx Mon Jul 28 20:21:45 2014 From: ak at list.ak.cx (Andre Keller) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:21:45 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53D694B9.9060500@list.ak.cx> Hi, I fully support this proposal. I do not think that this will change anything in the market out there, but it will ensure (or at least help) the registry data is being kept up-to-date. Regards On 07/28/2014 08:18 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, >> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis >> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster From scottleibrand at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 20:24:19 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:24:19 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Message-ID: Support. -Scott (speaking only for myself) On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, > > "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis > > that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > > > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 > > > > and the draft document at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft > > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 20:26:20 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:26:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53D695CC.9080309@ukraine.su> Hi Gert, for my knowlege, there was NO democratic decision, at least becuse of all international observers (excepr Russian, of course) said the vote itself was totally fake, but I'm not about it now. NO GOVERMENT IN THE WORLD, including Dutch one, accepted Crimea is a part of Russia. So why RIPE NCC does? If papers issued by Russian goverment in Crimea is acceptable because it is good for some members, can RIPE NCC accept same papers issued in Crimea say Principality of Sealand goverment as well? And the main question: Has RIPE NCC legal rights to accept that kind of documents at all? What RIPE NCC lawyers say? On 28.07.14 21:04, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:57:12PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: >> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >> i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? > > Max, what are you trying to achieve? There is no good answer to that > question. > > Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people decided > to be part of Russia all on their own (which sounds quite legit to me), > in a democratic decision - or it was an annection by Russia (not overly > legit, but has happened in the past). This is not something the RIPE NCC > can solve, and I think Axel's answer was as salomonic as possible: the NCC > serves it's *members*, not any government in particular. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Jul 28 20:30:54 2014 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:30:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20140728183054.GA2222@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:57:12PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: >So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? Not necessarily, I see it more of akin to a situation where a member is registered in country A but requests resources in Country B. Both .ua and .ru are in the RIPE Service Region, after all. If there is a territorial dispute between countries in different service regions, it might be more "interesting". rgds, Sascha Luck From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 20:40:41 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:40:41 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> Message-ID: <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? On 28.07.14 18:25, Axel Pawlik wrote: > On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) >> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? > > Max, all, > > the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership > organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number > resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation > provided by our members. > > This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that > the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have > national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, > so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national > authority the member chooses. > > cheers, Axel > > From aleheux at kobo.com Mon Jul 28 22:50:13 2014 From: aleheux at kobo.com (Alex Le Heux) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:50:13 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: On 2014-07-28, 20:40 , "Max Tulyev" wrote: >So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? Max, Axel said that the RIPE NCC would accept documentation proving that an entity exists from any country. Nothing more, nothing less. By your logic, if an entity present in Russia would be present documentation issued by the government of Luxembourg that the RIPE NCC would accept, the RIPE NCC would also accept that Russia is now part of Luxembourg. I?m sure the Grand Duke of Luxembourg would be thrilled to know that he managed to annex Russia while he wasn?t looking. Alex >On 28.07.14 18:25, Axel Pawlik wrote: >> On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) >>> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? >> >> Max, all, >> >> the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership >> organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number >> resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation >> provided by our members. >> >> This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that >> the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have >> national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, >> so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national >> authority the member chooses. >> >> cheers, Axel >> >> > > From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jul 28 22:58:18 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:58:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Hi Max, I understand your frustration, but this is not the place to fight this fight. The RIPE NCC has both Russian and Ukrainian members. A member can be an existing entity under either Russian or Ukrainian law. The location of the entity doesn't matter in this case. A company can have its office in Crimea, independent of whether it is registered as a Russian or a Ukrainian company and independent of which country Crimea belongs to. The RIPE NCC can only deal with if an entity exists. Compare it to this: if I would go and live in Belgium I can be a member as a Dutch personal entity while having a Belgian address. But this is getting severely off-topic for this mailing list, so let's stop this discussion here and focus on address policy again :) Cheers, Sander From noable at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 23:00:20 2014 From: noable at gmail.com (noable) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:00:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: I think ripe ncc must get consultancy from dutch lawer regarding this situation. imho ripe ncc must work with LEGAL ( based on dutch law ) organizations only. How is it possible to sign agreement with illegal company? How to take an action against same company or something else? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 23:07:54 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:07:54 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D6BBAA.3000908@ukraine.su> :)))) The question is *WILL* RIPE NCC accept that document or will said something like "Luixemburg company? With Novosibirsk registered office? Hey, get out of me that kind of illegal paper!" Will they? On 28.07.14 23:50, Alex Le Heux wrote: > > > On 2014-07-28, 20:40 , "Max Tulyev" wrote: > >> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >> i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? > > Max, > > Axel said that the RIPE NCC would accept documentation proving that an > entity exists from any country. Nothing more, nothing less. > > By your logic, if an entity present in Russia would be present > documentation issued by the government of Luxembourg that the RIPE NCC > would accept, the RIPE NCC would also accept that Russia is now part of > Luxembourg. > > I?m sure the Grand Duke of Luxembourg would be thrilled to know that he > managed to annex Russia while he wasn?t looking. > > Alex > >> On 28.07.14 18:25, Axel Pawlik wrote: >>> On 28/07/2014 15:54, Max Tulyev wrote: >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> Do RIPE NCC accept legal papers (i.e. company registration papers) >>>> issued by Russian occupation authorities in Crimea? If yes - why? >>> >>> Max, all, >>> >>> the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership >>> organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number >>> resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation >>> provided by our members. >>> >>> This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that >>> the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have >>> national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, >>> so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national >>> authority the member chooses. >>> >>> cheers, Axel >>> >>> >> >> > From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 23:11:16 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:11:16 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> Hi Sander, the problem is Russian authority can NOT issue a company papers for company based in Crimea, if Crimea is not a part of Russia. It is clear? Dutch goverment (and dutch law) is not recognized Crimea as a part of Russia. So why RIPE NCC accepts that kind of papers as legal? On 28.07.14 23:58, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Max, > > I understand your frustration, but this is not the place to fight this fight. The RIPE NCC has both Russian and Ukrainian members. A member can be an existing entity under either Russian or Ukrainian law. The location of the entity doesn't matter in this case. A company can have its office in Crimea, independent of whether it is registered as a Russian or a Ukrainian company and independent of which country Crimea belongs to. The RIPE NCC can only deal with if an entity exists. > > Compare it to this: if I would go and live in Belgium I can be a member as a Dutch personal entity while having a Belgian address. > > But this is getting severely off-topic for this mailing list, so let's stop this discussion here and focus on address policy again :) > > Cheers, > Sander > From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 23:12:25 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:12:25 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D6BCB9.2090505@ukraine.su> That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about! On 29.07.14 00:00, noable wrote: > I think ripe ncc must get consultancy from dutch lawer regarding this > situation. > > imho ripe ncc must work with LEGAL ( based on dutch law ) organizations > only. How is it possible to sign agreement with illegal company? How to > take an action against same company or something else? > From ebais at a2b-internet.com Mon Jul 28 23:20:56 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:20:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <138A94B3-B76F-4496-8219-C426AB6AC6DB@a2b-internet.com> Hi, > Op 28 jul. 2014 om 23:00 heeft noable het volgende geschreven: > > I think ripe ncc must get consultancy from dutch lawer regarding this situation. > > imho ripe ncc must work with LEGAL ( based on dutch law ) organizations only. How is it possible to sign agreement with illegal company? How to take an action against same company or something else? > The NCC has a legal council and is probably more than willing to investigate questions like which entity in which country, under which law, it can deal with (or not). Obviously the company register needs to be correct and if that is not the case, the legal council will provide guidance on how to deal with those situations.. Regards, Erik Bais -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Mon Jul 28 23:24:37 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:24:37 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <138A94B3-B76F-4496-8219-C426AB6AC6DB@a2b-internet.com> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> <138A94B3-B76F-4496-8219-C426AB6AC6DB@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <53D6BF95.7050409@ukraine.su> Great! Consensus! ;) So where and when I can read the conclusion of NCC legal council and its explanation? On 29.07.14 00:20, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi, > > Op 28 jul. 2014 om 23:00 heeft noable > het volgende geschreven: > >> I think ripe ncc must get consultancy from dutch lawer regarding this >> situation. >> >> imho ripe ncc must work with LEGAL ( based on dutch law ) >> organizations only. How is it possible to sign agreement with illegal >> company? How to take an action against same company or something else? >> > > The NCC has a legal council and is probably more than willing to > investigate questions like which entity in which country, under which > law, it can deal with (or not). > > Obviously the company register needs to be correct and if that is not > the case, the legal council will provide guidance on how to deal with > those situations.. > > Regards, > Erik Bais From elvis at velea.eu Tue Jul 29 00:43:35 2014 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:43:35 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53D6D217.7020401@velea.eu> Hi Gert, On 28/07/14 14:18, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, >> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis >> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > it also has my full support. Kind regards, elvis > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Tue Jul 29 01:49:43 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:49:43 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> Message-ID: > the foremost concern of the RIPE NCC as a neutral membership > organisation is to ensure accurate registration of Internet number > resources. To do this, we rely on the information and documentation > provided by our members. > > This documentation must come from a national authority and prove that > the member exists as a legal entity. Russia and Ukraine both have > national authorities that can confirm the existence of legal entities, > so the RIPE NCC will accept documentation from whichever national > authority the member chooses. The problem it entities on the occupied territory is not legal. They illegal. Until another is confirmed by _legal_ (Ukrainian in this case) authorities. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Tue Jul 29 01:53:52 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:53:52 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people > decided > to be part of Russia This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian soldiers. Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of referendum under machine guns. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Tue Jul 29 01:58:35 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:58:35 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D695CC.9080309@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <53D695CC.9080309@ukraine.su> Message-ID: Max, I also wish to know if such scheme is available for Crimea then... May I send such papers for Ukrainian service region which was signed by i.e. Panama authorities? Why not? It is the same. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com Max Tulyev ????? 2014-07-28 21:26: > Hi Gert, > > for my knowlege, there was NO democratic decision, at least becuse of > all international observers (excepr Russian, of course) said the vote > itself was totally fake, but I'm not about it now. > > NO GOVERMENT IN THE WORLD, including Dutch one, accepted Crimea is a > part of Russia. So why RIPE NCC does? > > If papers issued by Russian goverment in Crimea is acceptable because > it > is good for some members, can RIPE NCC accept same papers issued in > Crimea say Principality of Sealand goverment as well? > > And the main question: Has RIPE NCC legal rights to accept that kind of > documents at all? What RIPE NCC lawyers say? > > On 28.07.14 21:04, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:57:12PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >>> i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? >> >> Max, what are you trying to achieve? There is no good answer to that >> question. >> >> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >> decided >> to be part of Russia all on their own (which sounds quite legit to >> me), >> in a democratic decision - or it was an annection by Russia (not >> overly >> legit, but has happened in the past). This is not something the RIPE >> NCC >> can solve, and I think Axel's answer was as salomonic as possible: the >> NCC >> serves it's *members*, not any government in particular. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Tue Jul 29 02:07:24 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:07:24 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> Message-ID: No-no. It is NOT "...independent of which country Crimea belongs to". It is VERY important: Crimea belongs to Ukraine. And Dutch authorities recognize Crimea as Ukraine land. Dutch authorities said about it on the hoghest level: in the United Nations Security Council. So, there are no variants for Dutch government, but only one: Crimea is Ukraine. Dot. I think RIPE MUST NOT accept Russian issued papers for Ukraine based companies. Otherwise RIPE should start accept any country issued papers for any entities. For example: Ukrainian based companies with Panama issued papers. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com Sander Steffann ????? 2014-07-28 23:58: > Hi Max, > > I understand your frustration, but this is not the place to fight this > fight. The RIPE NCC has both Russian and Ukrainian members. A member > can be an existing entity under either Russian or Ukrainian law. The > location of the entity doesn't matter in this case. A company can have > its office in Crimea, independent of whether it is registered as a > Russian or a Ukrainian company and independent of which country Crimea > belongs to. The RIPE NCC can only deal with if an entity exists. > > Compare it to this: if I would go and live in Belgium I can be a > member as a Dutch personal entity while having a Belgian address. > > But this is getting severely off-topic for this mailing list, so let's > stop this discussion here and focus on address policy again :) > > Cheers, > Sander From Olaf.Sonderegger at abraxas.ch Tue Jul 29 08:51:45 2014 From: Olaf.Sonderegger at abraxas.ch (Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 06:51:45 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) Message-ID: Hi at all I also support the policy change. Best regards, Olaf (OLAF4-RIPE) From gert at space.net Tue Jul 29 09:33:16 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:33:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: > > Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people > > decided > > to be part of Russia > > This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian > soldiers. > Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of > referendum under machine guns. If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both sides use the media to spread propaganda. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ksyu at netassist.ua Tue Jul 29 09:57:55 2014 From: ksyu at netassist.ua (ksyu at netassist.ua) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:57:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> Gert Doering, Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words are not backed up by actions. Kseniya 29.07.2014 10:33, Gert Doering ?????: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: >>> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >>> decided >>> to be part of Russia >> >> This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian >> soldiers. >> Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of >> referendum under machine guns. > > If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, > otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. > > I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from > the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as > it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both > sides use the media to spread propaganda. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- ? ??. ?????? ????? From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Jul 29 10:10:24 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:10:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> Hi all, Dont get me wrong, but Is this list the correct one to discuss about if Crimea is or isnt part of Russia or Ukranie. If the Crimea ppl decided to be or forced to be part of Russia? I think we shouldnt take part in a politic discussion, even more when this list only references to Address Policy, not RIPE politics. >Kseniya wrote: > >Gert Doering, > >Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? > >If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words >are not backed up by actions. Im NOT answering in name of Gert, but I think Gert dont have the answer to that. Remember, this is the ADDRESS POLICY, not the RIPE POLITICS working group. Best Regards, -Daniel El 29/07/2014 9:33, Gert Doering escribi?: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: >>> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >>> decided >>> to be part of Russia >> >> This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian >> soldiers. >> Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of >> referendum under machine guns. > > If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, > otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. > > I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from > the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as > it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both > sides use the media to spread propaganda. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From frettled at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 10:45:13 2014 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:45:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) < d.baeza at tvt-datos.es> wrote: > Hi all, > > Dont get me wrong, but Is this list the correct one to discuss about if > Crimea is or isnt part of Russia or Ukranie. If the Crimea ppl decided to > be or forced to be part of Russia? > No, it's not. Im NOT answering in name of Gert, but I think Gert dont have the answer to > that. Remember, this is the ADDRESS POLICY, not the RIPE POLITICS working > group. > And "ADDRESS" does not mean postal address, but IP ADDRESS and ASN, in case some list members were in doubt. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ap -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michiel at klaver.it Tue Jul 29 10:43:01 2014 From: michiel at klaver.it (Michiel Klaver) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:43:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <53D75E95.9000400@klaver.it> Hi Max, Please tell us why you choose to spam thousands of subscribers of public mailinglists, while your question should have been addressed directly to NCC legal desk? http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact From ksyu at netassist.ua Tue Jul 29 10:53:14 2014 From: ksyu at netassist.ua (ksyu at netassist.ua) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:53:14 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D75E95.9000400@klaver.it> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> <53D75E95.9000400@klaver.it> Message-ID: <53D760FA.3010505@netassist.ua> Because it concern to everyone. Today you accept russian aggression. Tomorrow will die more than 298 YOUR people from their arms. 29.07.2014 11:43, Michiel Klaver ?????: > Hi Max, > > Please tell us why you choose to spam thousands of subscribers of public > mailinglists, while your question should have been addressed directly to NCC > legal desk? > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact > -- ? ??. ?????? ????? From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Jul 29 10:59:28 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:59:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D760FA.3010505@netassist.ua> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> <53D75E95.9000400@klaver.it> <53D760FA.3010505@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <53D76270.3040104@tvt-datos.es> El 29/07/2014 10:53, ksyu at netassist.ua escribi?: > Because it concern to everyone. > Today you accept russian aggression. Tomorrow will die more than 298 > YOUR people from their arms. And this is what happens when you discuss something political in a list that has nothing to do. > > 29.07.2014 11:43, Michiel Klaver ?????: >> Hi Max, >> >> Please tell us why you choose to spam thousands of subscribers of public >> mailinglists, while your question should have been addressed directly to NCC >> legal desk? >> >> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact >> > > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From michiel at klaver.it Tue Jul 29 11:03:25 2014 From: michiel at klaver.it (Michiel Klaver) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:03:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D760FA.3010505@netassist.ua> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D69929.2000201@ukraine.su> <53D6BC74.8020702@ukraine.su> <53D75E95.9000400@klaver.it> <53D760FA.3010505@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <53D7635D.2090901@klaver.it> it concerns everyone, but the question asked can only be answered by RIPE NCC legal desk. When they answer and it is not satisfying, you should contact your ambassy and take it to the political level. We as LIR members cannot change politics. ksyu at netassist.ua wrote at 29-07-2014 10:53: > Because it concern to everyone. > Today you accept russian aggression. Tomorrow will die more than 298 YOUR > people from their arms. > > 29.07.2014 11:43, Michiel Klaver ?????: >> Hi Max, >> >> Please tell us why you choose to spam thousands of subscribers of public >> mailinglists, while your question should have been addressed directly to NCC >> legal desk? >> >> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact >> > > From gert at space.net Tue Jul 29 11:21:56 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:21:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:57:55AM +0300, ksyu at netassist.ua wrote: > Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? I can't speak for the RIPE NCC. Axel does, and he has given you an answer. > If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words are > not backed up by actions. Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything to do with the address policy working group. I asked Max already: what are you trying to do? All you can achieve here is "spread the unhappiness". Accusing the NCC will not solve the problems in Ucraine or Crimea. Again: what are you trying to achieve? Get the NCC to refuse service to new LIRs that are being established in crimea, and who will not be able to provide ucrainian papers today? Who are you going to hurt with that, if NCC refuses service - Russia, or "the LIR that just wants to do business"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aleheux at kobo.com Tue Jul 29 11:30:08 2014 From: aleheux at kobo.com (Alex Le Heux) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:30:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> Message-ID: Hi Kseniya, >Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? > >If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words are >not backed up by actions. The RIPE NCC tries to take a pragmatic view: Just because some politicians decided it was a good idea to start a war, that shouldn?t mean that some people cannot register addresses. The RIPE NCC is in the business of registering addresses, not in the business of taking sides in international conflicts. And I for one think this is a good thing. The Crimean situation will be resolved one way or another and nothing we or the RIPE NCC do will change the outcome. In the mean time the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia and the people of Crimea all have a need for RIPE NCC services and I?m glad the RIPE NCC is trying to not let stupid politics get in the way of providing those services. All the best, Alex >Kseniya > > >29.07.2014 10:33, Gert Doering ?????: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: >>>> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >>>> decided >>>> to be part of Russia >>> >>> This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian >>> soldiers. >>> Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of >>> referendum under machine guns. >> >> If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, >> otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. >> >> I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from >> the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as >> it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both >> sides use the media to spread propaganda. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> > > >-- >? ??. ?????? ????? > From raimis at litnet.lt Tue Jul 29 11:31:03 2014 From: raimis at litnet.lt (Raimundas Tuminauskas) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:31:03 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> Message-ID: <009701cfab0f$d1375fc0$73a61f40$@litnet.lt> Dear all, Its just my couple of cents, please disregard if you feel this inappropriate 1. The problem raised by Max is deeper. It concerns two properties with the way Internet resources are distributed: a) some independence from the national governments, and b) neutrality. These principles have enabled the proliferation of the Internet globally. Internet being an alternative ITU-independent, community-driven etc. blah blah we all know it. 2. Neutrality as well as freedom of information would be more useful to the oppressor at any conflict situation. There are situations where these have to be challenged and questioned over and over. Its because "neutrality" in some cases could be seen as a collaboration with the occupant or worse - a silent participation in a crime. Question is whenever there should be a special policy in such cases for allocation of resources, or current set of policies are sufficient enough. 3. Paradoxically, neutrality, availability of international resources like Internet connectivity, and objective information in the grey zones of conflicts and disputes are the only counter-measures against the propaganda of whichever side. So yes, IMHO it is an appropriate forum to discuss the current set of policies of distribution of Internet resources in the light of current situation. LIR registration policy requires "The legal, registered address of your organization" to be provided. If RIPE NCC or any RIR will consider "Sevastopol, Russia" a legal address of the company, then it creates a precedent for even less favorable "legal" addresses. The same should apply to the change of legal address, reallocation of resources, etc. On the other hand denial of change will essentially void the functionality of LIR. Requests for allocation of resources for the region by the legal (not "legal") entity, e.g. existing registered LIR shall be processed normally. There is no good answer in these cases. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:10 AM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers Hi all, Dont get me wrong, but Is this list the correct one to discuss about if Crimea is or isnt part of Russia or Ukranie. If the Crimea ppl decided to be or forced to be part of Russia? I think we shouldnt take part in a politic discussion, even more when this list only references to Address Policy, not RIPE politics. >Kseniya wrote: > >Gert Doering, > >Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? > >If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words >are not backed up by actions. Im NOT answering in name of Gert, but I think Gert dont have the answer to that. Remember, this is the ADDRESS POLICY, not the RIPE POLITICS working group. Best Regards, -Daniel El 29/07/2014 9:33, Gert Doering escribi?: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: >>> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >>> decided to be part of Russia >> >> This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian >> soldiers. >> Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of >> referendum under machine guns. > > If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, > otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. > > I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from > the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as > it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both > sides use the media to spread propaganda. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Jul 29 11:35:18 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:35:18 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering wrote: > Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything > to do with the address policy working group. +1000000 RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. It might be OK to express the obvious concerns about ending the conflict and support for humanitarian assistance. However it's hard to see how these are remotely relevant to this or any other WG. If/when a new LIR in this conflict area -- is there an existence proof of such an LIR? -- the NCC can take a pragmatic decision about whether the documentation for that new member is in order or not. Axel's already outlined the general approach. From d.baeza at tvt-datos.es Tue Jul 29 11:43:42 2014 From: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es (Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:43:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <009701cfab0f$d1375fc0$73a61f40$@litnet.lt> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D756F0.1010704@tvt-datos.es> <009701cfab0f$d1375fc0$73a61f40$@litnet.lt> Message-ID: <53D76CCE.8000009@tvt-datos.es> Hi Raimundas, This is the correct list to discuss about address policies, not about if RIPE should or shouldnt accept Crimea as Russia or Ukraine. In this list we dont set the legal/law questions about RIPE. The person interested if RIPE will/wont take LIRs with paper from Crimea, Russia or Crimea, Ukraine should ask directly to RIPE. As Michiel wrote before: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact Then ask there your question. Here we cant help you on that. Best Regards, El 29/07/2014 11:31, Raimundas Tuminauskas escribi?: > Dear all, > > Its just my couple of cents, please disregard if you feel this inappropriate > > 1. The problem raised by Max is deeper. It concerns two properties with > the way Internet resources are distributed: a) some independence from the > national governments, and b) neutrality. These principles have enabled the > proliferation of the Internet globally. Internet being an alternative > ITU-independent, community-driven etc. blah blah we all know it. > 2. Neutrality as well as freedom of information would be more useful to > the oppressor at any conflict situation. There are situations where these > have to be challenged and questioned over and over. Its because "neutrality" > in some cases could be seen as a collaboration with the occupant or worse - > a silent participation in a crime. > Question is whenever there should be a special policy in such cases for > allocation of resources, or current set of policies are sufficient enough. > 3. Paradoxically, neutrality, availability of international resources > like Internet connectivity, and objective information in the grey zones of > conflicts and disputes are the only counter-measures against the propaganda > of whichever side. > > So yes, IMHO it is an appropriate forum to discuss the current set of > policies of distribution of Internet resources in the light of current > situation. > > LIR registration policy requires "The legal, registered address of your > organization" to be provided. If RIPE NCC or any RIR will consider > "Sevastopol, Russia" a legal address of the company, then it creates a > precedent for even less favorable "legal" addresses. The same should apply > to the change of legal address, reallocation of resources, etc. On the other > hand denial of change will essentially void the functionality of LIR. > Requests for allocation of resources for the region by the legal (not > "legal") entity, e.g. existing registered LIR shall be processed normally. > > > There is no good answer in these cases. > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Baeza (Red y > Sistemas TVT) > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:10 AM > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > > Hi all, > > Dont get me wrong, but Is this list the correct one to discuss about if > Crimea is or isnt part of Russia or Ukranie. If the Crimea ppl decided to be > or forced to be part of Russia? > > I think we shouldnt take part in a politic discussion, even more when this > list only references to Address Policy, not RIPE politics. > > >Kseniya wrote: > > > >Gert Doering, > > > >Just one question. Will RIPE NCC acept these documents or not? > > > >If yes, that will show that European words means nothing. And words >are > not backed up by actions. > > Im NOT answering in name of Gert, but I think Gert dont have the answer to > that. Remember, this is the ADDRESS POLICY, not the RIPE POLITICS working > group. > > Best Regards, > > -Daniel > > > > El 29/07/2014 9:33, Gert Doering escribi?: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:52AM +0300, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote: >>>> Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people >>>> decided to be part of Russia >>> >>> This is wrong statement. Not Crimea people decided, but Russian >>> soldiers. >>> Probably you know that nobody in the world accept the results of >>> referendum under machine guns. >> >> If you quote me, quote me completely, do not cut off the second half, >> otherwise it's not useful discussing with you. >> >> I did present a balanced view *BECAUSE* it is hard to understand from >> the outside what exactly happened there, without having been there, as >> it's not clear which reports are trustworthy and which are not. Both >> sides use the media to spread propaganda. >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> > > -- > Daniel Baeza > Centro de Observaci?n de Red > Dpto. Red y Sistemas > Television Costa Blanca S.L. > Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 > http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es > Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es > > -- > > [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, > > privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. > > Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje > > sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este > > e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. > > [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and > > confidential and is intended only for its addressee. > > Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is > prohibited. > > If you have received it in error please delete the original message and > e-mail us. > > (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. > > Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. > > > -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observaci?n de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza at tvt-datos.es -- [Atenci?n] La informaci?n contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y est? dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisi?n, difusi?n, distribuci?n o copiado de este mensaje sin autorizaci?n del propietario est? prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor b?rrelo y env?e un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario. From joao at bondis.org Tue Jul 29 11:54:22 2014 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >> to do with the address policy working group. > > +1000000 > > RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. Joao -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Jul 29 12:05:05 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:05:05 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi My 2 cents. If there is person or company need ip and network in the region, so ripe Ncc will provide. Simple. I trust ripe Ncc is smart enough to avoid any political bs. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?7?29?, at ??6:00, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers (Jo?o Damas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:54:22 +0200 > From: Jo?o Damas > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers > To: Jim Reid > Cc: Gert Doering , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A at bondis.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering wrote: >>> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 203 bytes > Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail > Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140729/0fddb49d/attachment-0001.bin > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 27 > ************************************************* From athina.fragkouli at ripe.net Tue Jul 29 12:02:04 2014 From: athina.fragkouli at ripe.net (Athina Fragkouli) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:02:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position Message-ID: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> Dear all, The RIPE NCC has the right to be contractually engaged with and to provide services to any legal entity, unless there are restrictions by law. Currently, Dutch law does not restrict our contractual engagement with, or provision of our services to, legal entities in Crimea. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state?s authority over a region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Tue Jul 29 12:30:34 2014 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:30:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position In-Reply-To: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> References: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20140729103034.GA10495@nic.fr> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:02:04PM +0200, Athina Fragkouli wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be > sufficient proof. You did not reply to one of the questions raised in the thread: can a future member present papers from a national authority of another country? I start a LIR in France, can I present papers from the german authorities (should Germany issue them)? From sergey at devnull.ru Tue Jul 29 12:37:47 2014 From: sergey at devnull.ru (Sergey Myasoedov) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:37:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position In-Reply-To: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> References: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <1517996639.20140729123747@devnull.ru> Very good point. Thanks for the explanation Athina! Tuesday, July 29, 2014, 12:02:04 PM, you wrote: AF> The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state?s authority over a AF> region. Given the situation in Crimea, the RIPE NCC is striving to AF> facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this AF> area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. -- Sergey From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 29 14:35:43 2014 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:35:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position In-Reply-To: <20140729103034.GA10495@nic.fr> References: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> <20140729103034.GA10495@nic.fr> Message-ID: How would you get these "papers" from the German authorities if you started the LIR in France? If you are a multinational corp., wouldn't your local holdings in France have some kind of FR legal identity associated with them? While steering clear of the Crimea issue, the question of legal identity is relevant to several number policy issues; e.g., in ARIN region we are currently considering this: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_1.html -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:31 AM To: Athina Fragkouli Cc: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:02:04PM +0200, Athina Fragkouli wrote a message of 21 lines which said: > Documents issued by national authorities are considered to be > sufficient proof. You did not reply to one of the questions raised in the thread: can a future member present papers from a national authority of another country? I start a LIR in France, can I present papers from the german authorities (should Germany issue them)? From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Tue Jul 29 14:44:46 2014 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:44:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Crimea papers - Clarifying the RIPE NCC Legal Position In-Reply-To: References: <53D7711C.5060904@ripe.net> <20140729103034.GA10495@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20140729124446.GA27855@nic.fr> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:35:43PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > How would you get these "papers" from the German authorities if you > started the LIR in France? It was of course an hypothetical case. The real issue, in that thread, was papers from Russian authorities when starting a LIR in Ukraine but I hoped to have better responses by shifting to a less loaded case. From dcunningham at airspeed.ie Tue Jul 29 14:47:59 2014 From: dcunningham at airspeed.ie (Donal Cunningham) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:47:59 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Message-ID: Folks, I support this proposal. D. -- AirSpeed Telecom Support support at airspeed.ie : +353 1 428 7530 From dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua Tue Jul 29 15:21:40 2014 From: dmitriy at deltahost.com.ua (Dmitriy Zemlyanoy) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:21:40 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> Message-ID: Guys. Will you say the same when war will came to your house? What will you do when Putins mercenary will kill your family (and they already did it with hundreds of families on MH17). You have to understand - the new war is coming to Europe. And agressor must be stopped. Everywhere. Also in the internet - to prevent propaganda spread. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com Jo?o Damas ????? 2014-07-29 12:54: > On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:35, Jim Reid wrote: > >> >> On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Gert Doering wrote: >> >>> Please take your fight and accusations elsewhere. It does not have >>> anything >>> to do with the address policy working group. >> >> +1000000 >> >> RIPE and the NCC should keep well out of these political matters. > > Away from the political aspects: indeed! This is not the place where > these things can be solved. > > Away from the legal aspects, quite possibly not. There is a > requirement to provide legal papers and it would be good for the RIPE > NCC to seek advice on the matter without making judgement calls. I > don?t think anyone wants a repeat of previous sub-optimal handling of > legal and law enforcement requests by the RIPE NCC. It?s better to be > on solid ground and it shouldn?t be hard to ask for legal review. > > Joao From juampe at cerezo.org Tue Jul 29 15:33:33 2014 From: juampe at cerezo.org (Juan P. Cerezo) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:33:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer) In-Reply-To: <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> References: <20140710100351.9B9FF60276@mobil.space.net> <20140728181853.GA48371@Space.Net> Message-ID: <18E4E1D4-9F0C-46C2-A18A-4B37BA8BDFF5@cerezo.org> Hi Gert, all. I support this proposal. Regards, --- Juan P. Cerezo On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, >> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis >> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft > > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Jul 29 15:45:37 2014 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:45:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> Message-ID: Dmitriy, all, as has been stated repeatedly, this is not the place for this discussion. The initial question was "will RIPE NCC hand resources to a LIR in Crimea, based on Russian papers" and the clear answer is "if said papers establish the existence of the LIR and substantiate the LIR's claims, yes". I am sure many people hold strong opinions on the topic of Crimea, but neither RIPE NCC nor RIPE community is the place to discuss this topic. Does this, and other, situations suck? Yes. Can RIPE NCC do anything about it? No. As Gert pointed out, what you seem to be arguing for is basically a punishment for any Crimean LIRs for being located in a region of conflict. What would that achieve? About as much as the current discussion. Richard PS: There have been and are other conflict regions within RIPE region; those are not punished for being in the wrong place, either. PPS: You are free to try and submit a PDP and/or bring the topic up at a RIPE meeting, but don't expect consensus. From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Jul 29 15:50:57 2014 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 17:50:57 +0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072801005573] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53D695CC.9080309@ukraine.su> References: <53D695CC.9080309@ukraine.su> <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1406641856.12946.0647500682.537897.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Max, ? I unterstund that you are not very happy what happend last time. This is very bad situation for all people. We are not politics. Our community help people work. Axel suggested very smart solution - any paper from any goverment. I support this position. This is neutral decussion, which allow people work in Internet. ? -- Aleksei 28.07.2014 22:26 - Max Tulyev ???????(?): Hi Gert, for my knowlege, there was NO democratic decision, at least becuse of all international observers (excepr Russian, of course) said the vote itself was totally fake, but I'm not about it now. NO GOVERMENT IN THE WORLD, including Dutch one, accepted Crimea is a part of Russia. So why RIPE NCC does? If papers issued by Russian goverment in Crimea is acceptable because it is good for some members, can RIPE NCC accept same papers issued in Crimea say Principality of Sealand goverment as well? And the main question: Has RIPE NCC legal rights to accept that kind of documents at all? What RIPE NCC lawyers say? On 28.07.14 21:04, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:57:12PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote: >> So RIPE NCC accepts Russian authorities have rights in Crimea region, >> i.e. accepts Crimea is a part of Russia? > > Max, what are you trying to achieve???There is no good answer to that > question.?? > > Depending which media outlet you decide to believe, crimean people decided > to be part of Russia all on their own (which sounds quite legit to me), > in a democratic decision - or it was an annection by Russia (not overly > legit, but has happened in the past).??This is not something the RIPE NCC > can solve, and I think Axel's answer was as salomonic as possible: the NCC > serves it's *members*, not any government in particular. > > Gert Doering >???????? -- NetMaster > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ksyu at netassist.ua Thu Jul 31 13:04:46 2014 From: ksyu at netassist.ua (ksyu at netassist.ua) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:04:46 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> Message-ID: <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> lets see this article http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.01.0002.01.ENG 29.07.2014 16:45, Richard Hartmann ?????: > Dmitriy, all, > > > as has been stated repeatedly, this is not the place for this discussion. > > The initial question was "will RIPE NCC hand resources to a LIR in > Crimea, based on Russian papers" and the clear answer is "if said > papers establish the existence of the LIR and substantiate the LIR's > claims, yes". > > > I am sure many people hold strong opinions on the topic of Crimea, but > neither RIPE NCC nor RIPE community is the place to discuss this > topic. Does this, and other, situations suck? Yes. Can RIPE NCC do > anything about it? No. > > > As Gert pointed out, what you seem to be arguing for is basically a > punishment for any Crimean LIRs for being located in a region of > conflict. What would that achieve? About as much as the current > discussion. > > > Richard > > PS: There have been and are other conflict regions within RIPE region; > those are not punished for being in the wrong place, either. > > PPS: You are free to try and submit a PDP and/or bring the topic up at > a RIPE meeting, but don't expect consensus. > -- ? ??. ?????? ????? From mschmidt at ripe.net Thu Jul 31 13:30:43 2014 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:30:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-04, "Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8", has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Extending the fulfilment of the IPv6 requirement to include any globally routable unicast IPv6 address block - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 29 August 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 14:17:09 2014 From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:17:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> Message-ID: Hello, I do not like civil wars, wars or similar events, however, shell we punish LIRs because they work in an area of conflict? Defnitely not. Shall we punish the end users? Definitely not. Shell we discuss at RIPE lists the political or military conflicts? Definitely not. I fully agree with Axel Pawlik and Richard Hartmann. Thnkx, G?za On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, ksyu at netassist.ua wrote: > lets see this article > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri= > uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.01.0002.01.ENG > > > 29.07.2014 16:45, Richard Hartmann ?????: > > Dmitriy, all, >> >> >> as has been stated repeatedly, this is not the place for this discussion. >> >> The initial question was "will RIPE NCC hand resources to a LIR in >> Crimea, based on Russian papers" and the clear answer is "if said >> papers establish the existence of the LIR and substantiate the LIR's >> claims, yes". >> >> >> I am sure many people hold strong opinions on the topic of Crimea, but >> neither RIPE NCC nor RIPE community is the place to discuss this >> topic. Does this, and other, situations suck? Yes. Can RIPE NCC do >> anything about it? No. >> >> >> As Gert pointed out, what you seem to be arguing for is basically a >> punishment for any Crimean LIRs for being located in a region of >> conflict. What would that achieve? About as much as the current >> discussion. >> >> >> Richard >> >> PS: There have been and are other conflict regions within RIPE region; >> those are not punished for being in the wrong place, either. >> >> PPS: You are free to try and submit a PDP and/or bring the topic up at >> a RIPE meeting, but don't expect consensus. >> >> > > -- > ? ??. ?????? ????? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From president at ukraine.su Thu Jul 31 14:30:57 2014 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:30:57 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: References: <53D65628.6010001@ukraine.su> <53D66B6A.3060002@ripe.net> <53D68EF8.2060103@ukraine.su> <20140728180451.GC51793@Space.Net> <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> Message-ID: <53DA3701.6080205@ukraine.su> Hello, shell we obey the EU and Dutch law? Definitely not. On 31.07.14 15:17, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > Hello, > > I do not like civil wars, wars or similar events, however, shell we > punish LIRs because they work in an area of conflict? > > Defnitely not. > > Shall we punish the end users? > > Definitely not. > > Shell we discuss at RIPE lists the political or military conflicts? > > Definitely not. > > I fully agree with Axel Pawlik and Richard Hartmann. > > Thnkx, > > G?za > > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, ksyu at netassist.ua > > wrote: > > lets see this article > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/__legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=__uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.01.__0002.01.ENG > > > > 29.07.2014 16:45, Richard Hartmann ?????: > > Dmitriy, all, > > > as has been stated repeatedly, this is not the place for this > discussion. > > The initial question was "will RIPE NCC hand resources to a LIR in > Crimea, based on Russian papers" and the clear answer is "if said > papers establish the existence of the LIR and substantiate the LIR's > claims, yes". > > > I am sure many people hold strong opinions on the topic of > Crimea, but > neither RIPE NCC nor RIPE community is the place to discuss this > topic. Does this, and other, situations suck? Yes. Can RIPE NCC do > anything about it? No. > > > As Gert pointed out, what you seem to be arguing for is basically a > punishment for any Crimean LIRs for being located in a region of > conflict. What would that achieve? About as much as the current > discussion. > > > Richard > > PS: There have been and are other conflict regions within RIPE > region; > those are not punished for being in the wrong place, either. > > PPS: You are free to try and submit a PDP and/or bring the topic > up at > a RIPE meeting, but don't expect consensus. > > > > -- > ? ??. ?????? ????? > > From gert at space.net Thu Jul 31 14:40:40 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <53DA3701.6080205@ukraine.su> References: <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> <53DA3701.6080205@ukraine.su> Message-ID: <20140731124040.GD51793@Space.Net> Max, asking you again: *what* *are* *you* *trying* *to* *achieve*? If there is no answer to that that can be achieved by posting here, then please stop it. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at psg.com Thu Jul 31 14:44:59 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:44:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers In-Reply-To: <20140731124040.GD51793@Space.Net> References: <20140729073316.GJ51793@Space.Net> <53D75403.3080902@netassist.ua> <20140729092156.GM51793@Space.Net> <29BD1EF7-5F1A-47BE-9960-2F36DD21C01A@rfc1035.com> <7C28157D-633E-45BC-8855-4B3864CC436A@bondis.org> <53DA22CE.20506@netassist.ua> <53DA3701.6080205@ukraine.su> <20140731124040.GD51793@Space.Net> Message-ID: > asking you again: *what* *are* *you* *trying* *to* *achieve*? > > If there is no answer to that that can be achieved by posting here, > then please stop it. there is a problem. no, it can not be solved here, as far as i can see. so use your delete key if it annoys you. sheesh! randy