From mschmidt at ripe.net Fri Jun 5 10:30:56 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 10:30:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" has ended. A new draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Jun 8 15:43:14 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:43:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 15:50:24 2015 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:50:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Full support. Richard From james.blessing at despres.co.uk Mon Jun 8 17:56:42 2015 From: james.blessing at despres.co.uk (James Blessing) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:56:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 June 2015 at 14:50, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI >> When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > Full support. +1 J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 From bjornr at isnic.is Mon Jun 8 18:06:39 2015 From: bjornr at isnic.is (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_R=C3=B3bertsson?=) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:06:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1011189715.5580572.1433779599266.JavaMail.zimbra@sirona.isnic.is> +1 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Hartmann" > To: "Address Policy Working Group" > Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2015 1:50:24 PM > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > Full support. > > > Richard > > From nick at inex.ie Mon Jun 8 19:29:52 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:29:52 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5575D110.8080705@inex.ie> On 08/06/2015 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 Looks good. Nick From tore at fud.no Mon Jun 8 20:28:30 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:28:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150608202830.0450ec31@envy.fud.no> * Richard Hartmann > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > Full support. +1 Tore From Mathew.Newton643 at official.mod.uk Mon Jun 8 20:32:10 2015 From: Mathew.Newton643 at official.mod.uk (Mathew Newton) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:32:10 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Message-ID: On 08/06/2015 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Fully support. From rgori at wirem.net Mon Jun 8 21:14:05 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:14:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5575E97D.9080404@wirem.net> Support regards Riccardo Il 08/06/2015 15.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 89 25 947 wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution - Net-IT s.r.l. Via Emilia Ponente, 1667 47522 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 e-mail: info at wirem.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info at wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l. via Emilia Ponente, 1667 - 47522 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From silvia.hagen at sunny.ch Mon Jun 8 22:54:28 2015 From: silvia.hagen at sunny.ch (Silvia Hagen) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:54:28 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Support it -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Montag, 8. Juni 2015 15:43 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From arash_mpc at parsun.com Mon Jun 8 22:44:00 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 01:14:00 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> -1 to this proposal. Regards, Arash Naderpour From gert at space.net Mon Jun 8 23:20:51 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:20:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: > -1 to this proposal. Why? Disagreeing without giving a reason makes it impossible to address your concerns - and since we're not voting but building consensus, this is not overly helpful. 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 tim at haitabu.net Mon Jun 8 23:34:47 2015 From: tim at haitabu.net (Tim Kleefass) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:34:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55760A77.9020203@haitabu.net> On 08.06.2015 15:50, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI >> When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > Full support. +1 -Tim From arash_mpc at parsun.com Tue Jun 9 04:51:49 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:21:49 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> Hi, "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:51 AM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:14:00AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: > -1 to this proposal. Why? Disagreeing without giving a reason makes it impossible to address your concerns - and since we're not voting but building consensus, this is not overly helpful. 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 From salvatore.sciacco at cdlan.it Tue Jun 9 07:34:32 2015 From: salvatore.sciacco at cdlan.it (Salvatore Sciacco) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 05:34:32 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: <55760A77.9020203@haitabu.net> References: <55760A77.9020203@haitabu.net> Message-ID: Support. Best, S. Il giorno lun 8 giu 2015 alle ore 23:43 Tim Kleefass ha scritto: > On 08.06.2015 15:50, Richard Hartmann wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > >> When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > > > Full support. > > +1 > > -Tim > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsmaldone at alida.it Tue Jun 9 07:38:57 2015 From: dsmaldone at alida.it (Danilo Smaldone) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:38:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it's the right way Il 08/Giu/2015 15:45, "Marco Schmidt" ha scritto: > > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pourhakak at pishgaman.com Tue Jun 9 07:46:23 2015 From: pourhakak at pishgaman.com (=?utf-8?B?2b7bjNmF2KfZhiAg2b7ZiNix2K3aqdin2qk=?=) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:16:23 +0430 (IRDT) Subject: [address-policy-wg] -1 for 2015-1 In-Reply-To: <1671628567.564588.1433828696781.JavaMail.zimbra@pishgaman.com> Message-ID: <1489119073.564597.1433828783779.JavaMail.zimbra@pishgaman.com> hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy From iransat at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 07:59:03 2015 From: iransat at gmail.com (Amir Mohsenian) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:29:03 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1 Message-ID: hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listas at cutre.net Tue Jun 9 08:19:02 2015 From: listas at cutre.net (listas) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:19:02 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Message-ID: <55768558.2853b40a.567b.4f06@mx.google.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 08:34:42 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:34:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. There really isn't much to say, except to express my full support. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik at bais.name Tue Jun 9 09:18:29 2015 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 07:18:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BE9B5@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> Hi Arash, > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or > more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction > before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 09:21:35 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:21:35 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BE9B5@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BE9B5@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: <43471433834495@web13o.yandex.ru> I think Arash is speaking about possibility to receive multiple /22's and use it for own purposes. 09.06.2015, 10:19, "Erik Bais" : > Hi Arash, > >> ?"This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or >> ?more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction >> ?before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." > > The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. > This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. > > Regards, > Erik Bais --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From t.schallar at avalon.at Tue Jun 9 09:41:50 2015 From: t.schallar at avalon.at (DI. Thomas Schallar) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:41:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557698BE.60004@avalon.at> Hallo! I fully support this proposal. regards, Thomas schrieb Marco Schmidt am 11.05.2015 13:43: > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC From rgori at wirem.net Tue Jun 9 10:05:21 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:05:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55769E41.10302@wirem.net> Support +1 regards Riccardo Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net wirem.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 10:22:55 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:22:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55769E41.10302@wirem.net> References: <55769E41.10302@wirem.net> Message-ID: -1 I cannot support this proposal. There were the calculation was showing little part of transfers from the last /8. Also this proposal doesn't close multiple accounts 09 ??? 2015 ?. 11:01 ???????????? "Riccardo Gori" ???????: > Support +1 > > regards > Riccardo > > Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > > > > -- > > Riccardo Gori > e-mail: rgori at wirem.net > > [image: wirem.net] > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From teun at bit.nl Tue Jun 9 10:19:14 2015 From: teun at bit.nl (Teun Vink) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:19:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1433837954.1180.30.camel@moridin> On ma, 2015-06-08 at 15:43 +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. +1 -- Teun Vink BIT | teun at bit.nl | +31 318 648 688 KvK: 09090351 | GPG: 0x5A04F4E2 | RIPE: TEUN-RIPE From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 10:38:54 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:38:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <20150609083854.GT54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:21:49AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up one or > more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year restriction > before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." It does what it intends to do, and that is, make fast-trading (open LIR, get /22, sell of, close LIR) less attractive. It will not solve all other potential problems that exist or might exist, so "it does not go far enough" is not a good argument to oppose what might achieved in this first step - of course, a second step can always follow. 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 tore at fud.no Tue Jun 9 10:46:13 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:46:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609104613.52588fde@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> * "Marco Schmidt" > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. Support. Tore From erik at bais.name Tue Jun 9 10:49:43 2015 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:49:43 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609104613.52588fde@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> References: <20150609104613.52588fde@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> Message-ID: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BFA82@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> * "Marco Schmidt" > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. Support +1 Erik Bais From herve.clement at orange.com Tue Jun 9 10:56:47 2015 From: herve.clement at orange.com (herve.clement at orange.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:56:47 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BFA82@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> References: <20150609104613.52588fde@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com> <862A73D42343AE49B2FC3C32FDDFE91C01611BFA82@E2010-MBX04.exchange2010.nl> Message-ID: <27519_1433840208_5576AA50_27519_1890_1_2AF4C0655C93DD4D9A005252D465A8082F6D47DB@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> * "Marco Schmidt" > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment > of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. I fully support the proposal Herv? CLEMENT _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 11:00:08 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:00:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] -1 for 2015-1 In-Reply-To: <1489119073.564597.1433828783779.JavaMail.zimbra@pishgaman.com> References: <1671628567.564588.1433828696781.JavaMail.zimbra@pishgaman.com> <1489119073.564597.1433828783779.JavaMail.zimbra@pishgaman.com> Message-ID: <20150609090008.GW54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:16:23AM +0430, ?????????? ?????????????? wrote: > policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy Please explain the reasoning behind. Otherwise it is hard for us to address your concerns. "It does not go far enough" is something I'll not consider a viable objection on the last day of the review phase - as "going further" can always be addressed in another protocol, afterwards or even in parallel. "It will break my business of opening LIRs and selling off /22s quickly" is also not considered something that will hold up the proposal, as this is the whole point of 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 gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 11:03:27 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:03:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609090327.GX54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:03AM +0430, Amir Mohsenian wrote: > policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy Again. Please spell out your objections, so we can address them. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG 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 modonovan at btireland.net Tue Jun 9 11:12:19 2015 From: modonovan at btireland.net (Mick O Donovan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:12:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609091219.GC369@carra.btireland.net> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Support! -- Mick O'Donovan | Network Engineer | BT Ireland | Website: http://www.btireland.net Looking Glass: http://lg.as2110.net Peering Record: http://as2110.peeringdb.com AS-SET Macro: AS-BTIRE | ASN: 2110 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 213 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From iransat at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:15:27 2015 From: iransat at gmail.com (Amir Mohsenian) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:45:27 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1 In-Reply-To: <20150609090327.GX54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609090327.GX54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <014401d0a294$d5493a70$7fdbaf50$@gmail.com> Hi, -1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01) Amir Mohsenian -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:33 PM To: Amir Mohsenian Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1 Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:29:03AM +0430, Amir Mohsenian wrote: > policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy Again. Please spell out your objections, so we can address them. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG 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 From petr at fast-telecom.net Tue Jun 9 11:16:54 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:16:54 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 11:28:36 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:28:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] policy 2015-1 In-Reply-To: <014401d0a294$d5493a70$7fdbaf50$@gmail.com> References: <20150609090327.GX54385@Space.Net> <014401d0a294$d5493a70$7fdbaf50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150609092836.GA54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:45:27PM +0430, Amir Mohsenian wrote: > Hi, > > -1 > I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01) Repeating the statement and still not explaining *why* you object is not exactly "spelling out your objection". Again: the consensus based process is based on voicing objections, and giving the proposer (or the people that support a proposal) the chance to *address* the objection. This is an important part of the process, and if you decide to not follow it, even if told so by the chair, your mails will not receive a very strong weight when judging consensus at the end of the discussion phase. 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 stecenkoserj at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 11:31:46 2015 From: stecenkoserj at gmail.com (Sergey Stecenko) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:31:46 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: I opposite this proposal. It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership ???????, 9 ???? 2015 ?. ???????????? Petr Umelov ???????: > I support Aleksey's opinion (NOT this proposal). > > Why address -policy -wg doesn't tell anything about little influence of > transfers on the system? > > > 11:23, 9 ???? 2015 ?., Aleksey Bulgakov : > > -1 > I cannot support this proposal. > There were the calculation was showing little part of transfers from the > last /8. > Also this proposal doesn't close multiple accounts > 09 ??? 2015 ?. 11:01 ???????????? "Riccardo Gori" > ???????: > > Support +1 > > regards > Riccardo > > Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: > > Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in > 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has > also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis > at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the > draft document at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We > encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC > > > > -- > Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net part1.04050103.07050807 at wirem.net > > > > > -- > Regards -- ----- Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 11:37:48 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:37:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609093748.GB54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:31:46PM +0300, Sergey Stecenko wrote: > I opposite this proposal. > > It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get payment > from this scheme and will increase the price of membership Raising the price of the block if you fast-sell it is intended. Increase of membership price is outside scope of address policy WG, thus outside scope of this proposal and needs to be addressed in the RIPE AGM. 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 sebastian at karotte.org Tue Jun 9 11:43:06 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:43:06 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609094306.GA4541@danton.fire-world.de> * Marco Schmidt [2015-06-08 15:48]: > > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Support -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Tue Jun 9 12:00:24 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:00:24 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609100024.GY35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI >When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > >The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. I support this proposal. rgds, Sascha Luck From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 12:03:51 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:03:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > I opposite this proposal. > > It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get > payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ... Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding) Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... Regards, Garry -- Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstra?e 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 From rb at isppro.de Tue Jun 9 12:05:13 2015 From: rb at isppro.de (Ronny Boesger [ISPpro Internet KG]) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:05:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5576BA59.2010102@isppro.de> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:43:14PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI >When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > >The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. +1 , full support. rgds, Ronny Boesger From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 12:13:11 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 12:13:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5576BC37.80609@nethinks.com> > > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 > +1 Regards, Garry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From florian at bauhaus.cc Tue Jun 9 12:27:12 2015 From: florian at bauhaus.cc (Florian Bauhaus) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:27:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > I support this proposal. Best, Florian Bauhaus From florian at bauhaus.cc Tue Jun 9 12:33:18 2015 From: florian at bauhaus.cc (Florian Bauhaus) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:33:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > Hi, I support this proposal. Best, Florian Bauhaus From poty at iiat.ru Tue Jun 9 12:36:27 2015 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:36:27 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] FW: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Message-ID: <38A326B32984534586F211FB04239BF855F19EE4@Win2008R2.office.iiat> Hi, I'm completely for the proposal and think that it could bring some initial intentions in place with reality. +1 Regards, Vladislav Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andre Keller Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:31 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards Andr? From matei at profisol.ro Tue Jun 9 12:35:49 2015 From: matei at profisol.ro (Storch Matei) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:35:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Hi, I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Thank you, Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei at profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Guten Tag, > I opposite this proposal. > > It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get > payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ... Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding) Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... Regards, Garry -- Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstra?e 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 12:45:17 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:45:17 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" : > Hi, > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view > regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding > that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point > of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the > pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - > which from my point of view is a long time. > > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because > it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup > fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the > current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be > enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, > from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > Thank you, > Matei Storch > [F]: General Manager > [M]: +40728.555.004 > [E]: matei at profisol.ro > [C]: Profisol Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Garry Glendown > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis > Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > > Guten Tag, >> ?I opposite this proposal. >> >> ?It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get >> ?payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership > > I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs > that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a > /22 then transfer to another LIR ... > > Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) > should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - > while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the > limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree > of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by > throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the > market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so > limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years > (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not > completely rule out hoarding) > > Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... > > Regards, Garry > > -- > > Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions > > NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstra?e 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 > 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Uwe Bergmann > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP > Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 13:00:42 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:00:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > Hi! > > Fully support your arguments. > > 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" : >> Hi, >> >> I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view >> regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding >> that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point >> of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the >> pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - >> which from my point of view is a long time. The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... >> Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because >> it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. >> Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup >> fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the >> current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in) >> Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be >> enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, >> from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" >> and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. Regards, Garry From poty at iiat.ru Tue Jun 9 13:12:29 2015 From: poty at iiat.ru (poty at iiat.ru) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:12:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <38A326B32984534586F211FB04239BF855F1A00A@Win2008R2.office.iiat> I don't think the opinion is fair. It mainly guesses like "if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same" " It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in." I think many voices have been raised that there is no need to lower the membership fee (and it is not this wg to decide about it), but mainly the measure to prevent the abuse of the rules. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vladimir Andreev Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 1:45 PM To: Storch Matei; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" : > Hi, > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of > view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my > understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from > the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new > /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last > more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. > > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs > because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros > setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and > it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should > be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. > Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > Thank you, > Matei Storch > [F]: General Manager > [M]: +40728.555.004 > [E]: matei at profisol.ro > [C]: Profisol Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Garry Glendown > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > > Guten Tag, >> ?I opposite this proposal. >> >> ?It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get >> ?payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership > > I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate > LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of > receiving a > /22 then transfer to another LIR ... > > Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the > policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the > receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the > Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is > causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should > not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with > even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at > all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x > /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more > expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding) > > Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... > > Regards, Garry > > -- > > Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions > > NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstra?e 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F > +49 > 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Uwe Bergmann > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP > Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From apwg at c4inet.net Tue Jun 9 13:15:30 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:15:30 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: > >Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current >LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the >membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the >last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an >important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the >current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Financial dis-/advantages to the NCC are not in-scope for address policy -well, unless its survival is threatened ;)- >Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it >should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of >this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a >"change of the rules during the game" and it would have >retroactive effects - which is not ok. This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion. rgds, Sascha Luck From nick at inex.ie Tue Jun 9 14:22:21 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 13:22:21 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <5576DA7D.1010709@inex.ie> On 09/06/2015 12:15, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It > sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, > dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter > IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion. not really, no. RIPE NCC assigned number resources were and are assigned on the basis of the resource holder adhering to RIPE policy. Policy changes which apply retroactively to existing number resources have been made in the past, notably 2007-01. I.e. this policy change doesn't set a precedent. Nick From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Jun 9 14:34:47 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:34:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <1433853287.3477249.290730225.67EBCA9F@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 13:00, Garry Glendown wrote: > own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I > would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now It will make the "last /8 policy" last about 5 years (maybe 6), out of which 2.5 have already passed. > look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you > really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within > three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so No, but it will most likely get to a point where people can no longer ignore it (as is the case today). > anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... As for those needing v4 space: - there will be a clear signal to get v6 *deployed* - transfer market will still be in place. ... as for v4 needs, new players are already fscked .... And BTW, +1 for 2015-01 in case I didn't mention it already -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Jun 9 14:38:39 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:38:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1433853519.3478286.290736089.0B239C59@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015, at 15:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 +1 From sebastian at karotte.org Tue Jun 9 14:51:25 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 14:51:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150609125125.GA19703@danton.fire-world.de> * Sascha Luck [ml] [2015-06-09 13:18]: > >Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it > >should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of > >this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a > >"change of the rules during the game" and it would have > >retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It > sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, > dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter > IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion. This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects. It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet happend* can not be affected "ex post facto". What you're postulating is something like "I should not have to go to jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born." No, you will go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So stop doing it and you're fine. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From modonovan at btireland.net Tue Jun 9 14:56:19 2015 From: modonovan at btireland.net (Mick O Donovan) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:56:19 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609125618.GD369@carra.btireland.net> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > Support +1 here too. -- Mick O'Donovan | Network Engineer | BT Ireland | Website: http://www.btireland.net Looking Glass: http://lg.as2110.net Peering Record: http://as2110.peeringdb.com AS-SET Macro: AS-BTIRE | ASN: 2110 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 213 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sebastian at karotte.org Tue Jun 9 15:01:43 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:01:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> * Storch Matei [2015-06-09 12:45]: > Hi, > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view > regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding > that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point > of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the > pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - > which from my point of view is a long time. It does make a difference when the rate continues to increase which it probably will. It is quite reasonable to expect that it will when the IPv4 market pressure grows. So the goal is to put a stop to this before it is too late. Even if the rate should not increase, these actions are against the intention of the last-/8 policy and this alone is a reason why this proposal is needed in my opinion. > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because > it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup > fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the > current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Membership numbers / fees are not part of this WG. > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be > enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, > from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. It changes rules for transfers that happen after the proposal is accepted. So nothing changes for transfers that have already happened. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Tue Jun 9 15:19:40 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 14:19:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609125125.GA19703@danton.fire-world.de> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20150609125125.GA19703@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20150609131940.GA35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:51:25PM +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects. >It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet >happend* can not be affected "ex post facto". If the transfer policy were a document in its own right, I accept that I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, it's contained in the "Allocation and Assignment Policy" which is something I agree to abide by in a contract. I am not worried about 2015-01 here as I am not even affected by it, I am worried about other changes to the "Allocation and Assignment Policy" being applied retroactively, using 2015-01 as justification (just as 2007-01 is being used as justification for 2015-01). (FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the A&A policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would lessen confusion and make changes easier) >What you're postulating is something like "I should not have to go to >jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born." No, you will >go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So >stop doing it and you're fine. Actually, a much better analogy would be: "I should still be able to sell something I stole while it was still legal" rgds, Sascha Luck > >Regards > >Sebastian > >-- >GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 15:23:44 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:23:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: May be better is to return unused blocks during any time to the RIPE pool? Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer statistics. Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. 09 ??? 2015 ?. 16:01 ???????????? "Sebastian Wiesinger" < sebastian at karotte.org> ???????: > * Storch Matei [2015-06-09 12:45]: > > Hi, > > > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view > > regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my > understanding > > that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's > point > > of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, > the > > pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - > > which from my point of view is a long time. > > It does make a difference when the rate continues to increase which it > probably will. It is quite reasonable to expect that it will when the > IPv4 market pressure grows. So the goal is to put a stop to this > before it is too late. Even if the rate should not increase, these > actions are against the intention of the last-/8 policy and this > alone is a reason why this proposal is needed in my opinion. > > > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs > because > > it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be > lowered. > > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup > > fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in > the > > current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Membership numbers / fees are not part of this WG. > > > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be > > enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. > Otherwise, > > from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the > game" > > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > It changes rules for transfers that happen after the proposal is > accepted. So nothing changes for transfers that have already happened. > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE > SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gerald at ax.tc Tue Jun 9 15:20:19 2015 From: gerald at ax.tc (Gerald K.) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:20:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5576E813.5070903@ax.tc> After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: > Dear colleagues, > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. > > > Regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 15:30:09 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:30:09 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5576E813.5070903@ax.tc> References: <5576E813.5070903@ax.tc> Message-ID: <2346881433856609@web6m.yandex.ru> Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". 09.06.2015, 16:26, "Gerald K." : > After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! > > -- > Gerald (AS20783) > > Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: >> ?Dear colleagues, >> >> ?The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >> ?Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >> >> ?The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >> >> ?You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> ?????https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 >> >> ?and the draft document at: >> >> ?????https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft >> >> ?We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> ?address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. >> >> ?Regards, >> >> ?Marco Schmidt >> ?Policy Development Officer >> ?RIPE NCC --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Jun 9 15:33:58 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:33:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609131940.GA35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20150609125125.GA19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609131940.GA35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <1433856838.3491396.290783937.79F40D37@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 15:19, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > in the "Allocation and Assignment Policy" which is something I > agree to abide by in a contract. I am not worried about 2015-01 You agreed to abide to "the RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents" (whichever they are at the date you are asking yourself the question or try to do something under their incidence). Otherwise, RIPE-533/6.3 ( as of today) . > Actually, a much better analogy would be: "I should still be able > to sell something I stole while it was still legal" Even more accurate: Doesn't matter if you stole it, purchased it (legally or not) or obtained it legally for free, now you have restrictions on selling it. Policies do not apply in the past, and they don't apply in the future. They apply at the moment you try to do something being subject to the policy. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN From sebastian at karotte.org Tue Jun 9 16:06:44 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:06:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> * Aleksey Bulgakov [2015-06-09 15:27]: > Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup > new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such > names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer > statistics. The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? > Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 16:21:32 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:21:32 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: > The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to > become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. > >> Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. > > Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts > to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 > policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further > improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case? > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From matei at profisol.ro Tue Jun 9 16:28:12 2015 From: matei at profisol.ro (Storch Matei) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:28:12 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Guten Tag Garry, I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low). Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei at profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01 To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Guten Tag, > Hi! > > Fully support your arguments. > > 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" : >> Hi, >> >> I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of >> view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my >> understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from >> the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new >> /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last >> more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... >> Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs >> because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. >> Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros >> setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and >> it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in) >> Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should >> be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. >> Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" >> and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. Regards, Garry From aleksbulgakov at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 16:28:20 2015 From: aleksbulgakov at gmail.com (Aleksey Bulgakov) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:28:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: *will be able to 2015-06-09 17:21 GMT+03:00 Aleksey Bulgakov : >> The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to >> become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? > > I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They > could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But > after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. > >> >>> Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. >> >> Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts >> to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 >> policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further >> improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. > > Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing > Service spam? For what is this service in this case? > >> >> Regards >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. >> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > > > -- > ---------- > Best regards, > Aleksey Bulgakov > Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29 From sebastian at karotte.org Tue Jun 9 16:34:25 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:34:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20150609143425.GB3347@danton.fire-world.de> * Aleksey Bulgakov [2015-06-09 16:24]: > > The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to > > become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean? > > I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They > could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But > after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks. Sure, because back then we still had IPv4. Do you also complain because people could get gasoline much cheaper 10 years ago? > > Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts > > to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 > > policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further > > improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. > > Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing > Service spam? For what is this service in this case? No, I call it spam when you send mails advertising "unused, absolutely clean /22" to mail addresses only used for notifications in the RIPE database. You know what, why don't you come over to the anti-abuse mailinglist and join the discussion. I'm sure people will be delighted. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From he at uninett.no Tue Jun 9 16:36:02 2015 From: he at uninett.no (Havard Eidnes) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:36:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609.163602.384968157.he@uninett.no> +1 This should make it less profitable to overtly act against the intent of the "last /8" policy, so support. Regards, - H?vard From tore at fud.no Tue Jun 9 16:36:49 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:36:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> * Aleksey Bulgakov > > Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts > > to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 > > policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further > > improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises. > > Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing > Service spam? For what is this service in this case? I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 I suppose I should thank you for rousing me into supporting this proposal. When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation. Neat trick to spoof the ncc-announce list's subject tag, btw. Clever. Tore From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 16:41:09 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:41:09 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> Hi! >> thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. In my opinion it's absolutely right and current matter should be submitted for common voting. It's important to do this way because: 1) The proposal offer important change to IPv4 policy; 2) The proposal potentially affects many LIR's; 3) Only a small part of LIR's participate in present discussion; So I think the only way to make fair decision is to ask all LIR's regarding their opinion. 09.06.2015, 17:28, "Storch Matei" : > Guten Tag Garry, > > I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. > Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. > And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low). > > Matei Storch > [F]: General Manager > [M]: +40728.555.004 > [E]: matei at profisol.ro > [C]: Profisol Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01 > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > > Guten Tag, >> ?Hi! >> >> ?Fully support your arguments. >> >> ?09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" : >>> ?Hi, >>> >>> ?I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of >>> ?view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my >>> ?understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from >>> ?the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new >>> ?/22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last >>> ?more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time. > > The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ... >>> ?Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs >>> ?because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. >>> ?Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros >>> ?setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and >>> ?it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in) > >>> ?Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should >>> ?be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. >>> ?Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" >>> ?and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck. > > Regards, Garry --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From gerald at ax.tc Tue Jun 9 16:56:12 2015 From: gerald at ax.tc (Gerald K.) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:56:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2340501433856533@web6m.yandex.ru> References: <5576E813.5070903@ax.tc> <2340501433856533@web6m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5576FE8C.4070207@ax.tc> You're right, I meant "we from AS20783". I thought this was clear. -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". > > 09.06.2015, 16:26, "Gerald K." : >> After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! >> >> -- >> Gerald (AS20783) >> >> Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >>> Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >>> >>> The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >>> >>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 >>> >>> and the draft document at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft >>> >>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >>> address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Marco Schmidt >>> Policy Development Officer >>> RIPE NCC > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 > From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 16:57:51 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:57:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2346881433856609@web6m.yandex.ru> References: <5576E813.5070903@ax.tc> <2346881433856609@web6m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609145751.GH54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:30:09PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". I'm well able to understand that Gerald isn't speaking for you, no need to point that out. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something 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 Tue Jun 9 16:59:23 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:59:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609131940.GA35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609111530.GZ35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20150609125125.GA19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609131940.GA35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150609145923.GI54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:19:40PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > (FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the A&A > policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would > lessen confusion and make changes easier) This, actually, is work in progress. Expect a new proposal from Erik Bais soon. (Would you object to that as well, as it *also* modifies the existing address allocation and assignment policy documents?) 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 gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 17:03:12 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:03:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609150312.GJ54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:41:09PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > In my opinion it's absolutely right and current matter should be submitted for common voting. No. We do not vote on address policy, and (even more important) not only LIRs are entitled to have an opinion on policy. Voting and money happens in the AGM, we talk about resource distribution and (feeble) attempts to improve fairness in an inherently unfair situation of deprecation. 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 richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 17:22:43 2015 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:22:43 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 Actually, I call this worse than spam as it not only spams, it misrepresents which mechanism the mail has been sent through on purpose. It was an outright lie. > When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so > much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation. I could not agree more. I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on this and other RIPE mailing lists? Richard From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 17:19:53 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:19:53 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> Hi, I would like to express my opinion on this policy. As a broker it's obviously in my interest to shorten the supply in order to increase the prices as my commission is directly related to the price. And probably that's what every IPv4 address broker would hope for. As a community member I would just analyze the data. And the fact is that since the first transfer in october 2012 until now there were a total of 273.408 IPs transferred from 185.0.0.0/8 which represents 1.83% from the total 14.895.616 IPs transferred. Below is the monthly table for theese transfers: +---------+------+ | month | /22s | +---------+------+ | 2013-01 | 1 | | 2013-05 | 1 | | 2013-07 | 3 | | 2013-10 | 1 | | 2013-12 | 1 | | 2014-01 | 5 | | 2014-02 | 9 | | 2014-03 | 3 | | 2014-04 | 2 | | 2014-05 | 6 | | 2014-06 | 7 | | 2014-07 | 6 | | 2014-08 | 6 | | 2014-09 | 15 | | 2014-10 | 15 | | 2014-11 | 17 | | 2014-12 | 38 | | 2015-01 | 21 | | 2015-02 | 19 | | 2015-03 | 25 | | 2015-04 | 39 | | 2015-05 | 19 | | 2015-06 | 9 | +---------+------+ I can't see an exponential growth or a threat to the last /8 available pool. Actually as you know the pool has increased over the 2.5 years instead of being depleted. One other problem would be the name of the policy. Alignment of Transfer Requirements. It's actually a chage of transfer requirements. There were other IPs that were sold less than 2 years from the date they were obtained and that was a real problem. I will take a single example: 5.186.0.0/16. It was allocated by RIPE on 08.08.2012, during the last-mile fight for IPs and they were allocated to a natural person, which I don't suppose was running such a big business at that time to justify the real need. Then the IPs were sold on 02.07.2014. I remember it was very difficult for me to get a /14 for the biggest ISP in Romania in april 2012. How difficult was for others to get /16s, /15s, /14s which now are already sold ? How many IPs from the 5.0.0.0/8 (the pre-last one) were already sold ? 1.783.808. In my opinion theese are the IPs that were taken for free and only to be sold by "smart guys". Maybe there were some bribes involved but all the money went to the right pockets. How can any sane person compare such an abuse with the "abuse" that is happening today on the last /8 ? Obviously some people are making profit taking advantage of this but an important amount of the money goes back, as someone noted, to the community. So in this case there is a flaw that is exploited and it's results are : lower membership fees, quicker IPv4 depletion, more supply to the market helping temper the prices. Theese are the effects and I think any community member would agree that theese are all positive. If you want to analyze and do some corrections look to the abuses done in the past and find the persons that were part in that activity. We have a saying in Romania, "the country burns and the old lady brushes her hair". A plus from me to the fellow brokers that fight with all means to keep the market prices high, as I'll make more money too. A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Limited From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 17:40:29 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:40:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be > the only reason that drives our actions. Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something he came up with "to increase his profits". Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never happened. The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive. (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) 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 LIR at bva.bund.de Tue Jun 9 17:45:11 2015 From: LIR at bva.bund.de (LIR (BIT I 5)) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:45:11 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I support this proposal. Regards, Carsten LIR de.government -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Marco Schmidt Gesendet: Montag, 8. Juni 2015 15:43 An: policy-announce at ripe.net Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 17:45:37 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:45:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <20150609154537.GO54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs > comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on > this and other RIPE mailing lists? Only on very exceptional circumstances. Like, sustained personal attacks and not stopping when the chair calls to order. In general, a consensus based process living on an *open and publically archived mailing list* needs to be open to all interested parties - but at the same time, I think the openness works in our favour, as in many cases, people's actions very much speak for themselves... 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 office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 17:50:43 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:50:43 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> Hi Gert, Maybe my message was a little too extensive. I was in the room in London when the subject was discussed and I remember all the details. What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the community will benefit from it or some small group of people. To summarize the effects will be : - higher membership fees - higher IPv4 prices on the market What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? There are many problems, issues, reasons, for anyone to sustain or be against this policy but setting all aside, let's just focus on the benefits of adopting this policy. Is anyone convinced that it will bring a positive effect to the RIPE community ? That's whom the policies should serve. We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to preserve them, but that's in the past. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 6:40 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be >> the only reason that drives our actions. > > Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. > > Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this > list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was > brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed > that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something > he came up with "to increase his profits". > > Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on > addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we > should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never > happened. > > The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > make the obvious loophole less attractive. > > (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside > the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, > feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 17:51:01 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:51:01 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> > ?The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > ?the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > ?will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > ?to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > ?make the obvious loophole less attractive. Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. So what is this proposal about? 09.06.2015, 18:40, "Gert Doering" : > ?Hi, > > ?On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> ??A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be >> ??the only reason that drives our actions. > > ?Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. > > ?Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this > ?list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was > ?brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed > ?that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something > ?he came up with "to increase his profits". > > ?Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on > ?addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we > ?should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never > ?happened. > > ?The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > ?the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > ?will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > ?to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > ?make the obvious loophole less attractive. > > ?(So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside > ?the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, > ?feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent) > > ?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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 17:56:16 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:56:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's > in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in > any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the > entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to > preserve them, but that's in the past. Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would hit the wall. IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled), but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than they would like to have. And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8 policy. This proposal helps achieve that goal. 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 gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 17:58:30 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:58:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > ?The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to > > ?the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market > > ?will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear > > ?to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but > > ?make the obvious loophole less attractive. > > Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. > > Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. > > So what is this proposal about? The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible. With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection. But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded away: let's keep it that way. 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 vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 18:04:23 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:04:23 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2660451433865863@web30o.yandex.ru> Hi! Here: +---------+------+ | month | /22s | +---------+------+ | 2013-01 | 1 | | 2013-05 | 1 | | 2013-07 | 3 | | 2013-10 | 1 | | 2013-12 | 1 | | 2014-01 | 5 | | 2014-02 | 9 | | 2014-03 | 3 | | 2014-04 | 2 | | 2014-05 | 6 | | 2014-06 | 7 | | 2014-07 | 6 | | 2014-08 | 6 | | 2014-09 | 15 | | 2014-10 | 15 | | 2014-11 | 17 | | 2014-12 | 38 | | 2015-01 | 21 | | 2015-02 | 19 | | 2015-03 | 25 | | 2015-04 | 39 | | 2015-05 | 19 | | 2015-06 | 9 | +---------+------+ I see only single growth of transfers starting 09.2014. After that time transfer count is just oscillating up and down. 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" : > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ?> ?The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to >> ?> ?the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market >> ?> ?will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear >> ?> ?to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but >> ?> ?make the obvious loophole less attractive. >> >> ?Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. >> >> ?Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. >> >> ?So what is this proposal about? > > The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible. > > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > projection. > > But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded > away: let's keep it that way. > > 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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 18:07:59 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:07:59 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > projection. So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" : > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ?> ?The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to >> ?> ?the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market >> ?> ?will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear >> ?> ?to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but >> ?> ?make the obvious loophole less attractive. >> >> ?Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. >> >> ?Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. >> >> ?So what is this proposal about? > > The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible. > > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > projection. > > But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded > away: let's keep it that way. > > 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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 18:09:50 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:09:50 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> Hi, Each of us has his passions and wants to shout his opinion. I didn't get involved at all in this discussion even though I was aware of every argument from the begining. The RIPE community is not like other masses that can be easily manipulated as most are very intelligent IT professionals. Therefore I considered is better to step asside, as I'm in the IPv4 brokering business. I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis of the policy effects. Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees - increase IPv4 address prices - help the last /8 pool become even larger A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool that would just keep growing "forever". Theese are my arguments against the policy. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 6:56 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's >> in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in >> any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the >> entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to >> preserve them, but that's in the past. > > Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but > since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would > hit the wall. IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, > with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled), > but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more > IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than > they would like to have. > > And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound > like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that > they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8 > policy. This proposal helps achieve that goal. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 18:19:44 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:19:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> > help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion > The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware > of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware > that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. 09.06.2015, 19:10, "Ciprian Nica" : > Hi, > > Each of us has his passions and wants to shout his opinion. I didn't get > involved at all in this discussion even though I was aware of every > argument from the begining. > > The RIPE community is not like other masses that can be easily > manipulated as most are very intelligent IT professionals. Therefore I > considered is better to step asside, as I'm in the IPv4 brokering business. > > I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, > analysis of the policy effects. > > Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my > opinion the adoption of this policy will : > ?- increase membership fees > ?- increase IPv4 address prices > ?- help the last /8 pool become even larger > > A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not > care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's > issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool > that would just keep growing "forever". > > Theese are my arguments against the policy. > > The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware > of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware > that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 6:56 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> ?Hi, >> >> ?On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>> ?We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's >>> ?in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in >>> ?any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the >>> ?entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to >>> ?preserve them, but that's in the past. >> >> ?Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but >> ?since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would >> ?hit the wall. IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, >> ?with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled), >> ?but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more >> ?IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than >> ?they would like to have. >> >> ?And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound >> ?like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that >> ?they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8 >> ?policy. This proposal helps achieve that goal. >> >> ?Gert Doering >> ?????????-- APWG chair --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Tue Jun 9 18:30:40 2015 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:30:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <557714B0.1040103@schiefner.de> Dear Vladimir, On 09.06.2015 18:07, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only >> started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve >> you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a >> very reasonable projection. > > So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and > we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? even if I'd be able to assume for a technical second that your conclusion 'we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion"' would bear any portion of truth, I still entirely fail to see how this would relate to my or anybody else's worries in this regard. It might be that your crystal ball is much better polished than mine. But lacking any clear picture of the future I cowardly cave in for the time being and state: full support of 2015-01 ! Cheers, -C. From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 18:33:17 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:33:17 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> help the last /8 pool become even larger > > It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. > > So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would probably grow a little more than without this. > >> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. > > Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | seller | /22s | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian From petr at fast-telecom.net Tue Jun 9 18:42:52 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:42:52 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <2853931433868172@web5o.yandex.ru> But you forgot Jump Management SRL, who has made Attantion 1149 transfers and there were blocks more than /22. Yes, they aren't from the last /8, but may be RIPE will start to return unused blocks (during a year e.g.)? It will be more effectively. 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : > On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> ?help the last /8 pool become even larger >> >> ?It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >> >> ?So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion > > Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would > probably grow a little more than without this. >>> ?The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>> ?of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>> ?that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >> >> ?Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. > > As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I > would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here > is the statistics. > > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > | seller | /22s | > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | > | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | > | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | > | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | > | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > > Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from > the last /8. > > It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the > activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. > > Ciprian --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 18:43:23 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:43:23 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <3814581433868203@web26g.yandex.ru> You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations. Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : > ???On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> ????help the last /8 pool become even larger >> >> ????It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >> >> ????So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion > > ???Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would > ???probably grow a little more than without this. >>> ????The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>> ????of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>> ????that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >> >> ????Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. > > ???As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I > ???would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here > ???is the statistics. > > ???+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > ???| seller | /22s | > ???+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > ???| Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | > ???| QuickSoft LLC | 30 | > ???| Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | > ???| Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | > ???| Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | > ???+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > > ???Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from > ???the last /8. > > ???It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the > ???activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. > > ???Ciprian --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From petr at fast-telecom.net Tue Jun 9 18:43:43 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:43:43 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> *Attention 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : > On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> ?help the last /8 pool become even larger >> >> ?It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >> >> ?So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion > > Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would > probably grow a little more than without this. >>> ?The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>> ?of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>> ?that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >> >> ?Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. > > As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I > would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here > is the statistics. > > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > | seller | /22s | > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | > | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | > | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | > | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | > | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | > +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ > > Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from > the last /8. > > It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the > activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. > > Ciprian --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 18:55:22 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:55:22 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <3814581433868203@web26g.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <3814581433868203@web26g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55771A7A.2060405@ip-broker.uk> I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations. > > Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. > > 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : >> On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>>> help the last /8 pool become even larger >>> >>> It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >>> >>> So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion >> >> Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would >> probably grow a little more than without this. >>>> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>>> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>>> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >>> >>> Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. >> >> As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I >> would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here >> is the statistics. >> >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> | seller | /22s | >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | >> | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | >> | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | >> | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | >> | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> >> Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from >> the last /8. >> >> It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the >> activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. >> >> Ciprian > > > > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 > From sid at free.net Tue Jun 9 17:58:07 2015 From: sid at free.net (Dimitri I Sidelnikov) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:58:07 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <20150609130143.GB19703@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609140643.GA3347@danton.fire-world.de> <20150609163649.70c7b3d2@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <55770D0F.5020207@free.net> My support to the 2015-01. I cannot but fully agree with Tore. 09.06.2015 17:36, Tore Anderson writes: > I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3 > > I suppose I should thank you for rousing me into supporting this > proposal. When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so > much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation. -- Kind regards, --- D.Sidelnikov From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 18:59:02 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:59:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2853931433868172@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2853931433868172@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55771B56.4050808@ip-broker.uk> Jump Management is a legit business and I'm pround to say I represented them in many transactions. They didn't hoard the last /8 and more importantly they didn't hoard the pre-last /8, so please don't bring them into discussion Maybe at the next RIPE meeting I'll prepare an accurate presentation of his business as it's probably unique around the world. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:42 PM, Petr Umelov wrote: > But you forgot Jump Management SRL, who has made > > Attantion 1149 transfers > > and there were blocks more than /22. > > Yes, they aren't from the last /8, but may be RIPE will start to return unused blocks (during a year e.g.)? It will be more effectively. > > > 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : >> On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>>> help the last /8 pool become even larger >>> >>> It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >>> >>> So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion >> >> Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would >> probably grow a little more than without this. >>>> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>>> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>>> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >>> >>> Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. >> >> As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I >> would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here >> is the statistics. >> >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> | seller | /22s | >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | >> | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | >> | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | >> | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | >> | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | >> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >> >> Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from >> the last /8. >> >> It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the >> activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. >> >> Ciprian > > -- > Kind regards, > Petr Umelov > From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 19:03:43 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:03:43 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55771A7A.2060405@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <3814581433868203@web26g.yandex.ru> <55771A7A.2060405@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <3159771433869423@web3h.yandex.ru> >> ?rotten apples Such words regards to unknown person says a lot about you. Quite a lot. I consider it below my dignity to continue the dialogue with you. 09.06.2015, 19:55, "Ciprian Nica" : > ?I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring > ?to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your > ?company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. > > ?But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. > > ?Ciprian > > ?On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ??You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations. >> >> ??Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. >> >> ??09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : >>> ?????On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>>>> ??????help the last /8 pool become even larger >>>> >>>> ??????It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >>>> >>>> ??????So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion >>> >>> ?????Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would >>> ?????probably grow a little more than without this. >>>>> ??????The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>>>> ??????of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>>>> ??????that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >>>> >>>> ??????Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. >>> >>> ?????As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I >>> ?????would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here >>> ?????is the statistics. >>> >>> ?????+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>> ?????| seller | /22s | >>> ?????+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>> ?????| Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | >>> ?????| QuickSoft LLC | 30 | >>> ?????| Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | >>> ?????| Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | >>> ?????| Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | >>> ?????+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>> >>> ?????Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from >>> ?????the last /8. >>> >>> ?????It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the >>> ?????activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. >>> >>> ?????Ciprian >> >> ??-- >> ??With best regards, Vladimir Andreev >> ??General director, QuickSoft LLC >> ??Tel: +7 903 1750503 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 19:14:35 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:14:35 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <3159771433869423@web3h.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <3814581433868203@web26g.yandex.ru> <55771A7A.2060405@ip-broker.uk> <3159771433869423@web3h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55771EFB.4030606@ip-broker.uk> Probably the comparison was not adequate, I just wanted to point out some facts. I apologize for that. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 8:03 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> rotten apples > > Such words regards to unknown person says a lot about you. Quite a lot. > > I consider it below my dignity to continue the dialogue with you. > > 09.06.2015, 19:55, "Ciprian Nica" : >> I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring >> to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your >> company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. >> >> But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. >> >> Ciprian >> >> On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>> You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations. >>> >>> Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. >>> >>> 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : >>>> On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>>>>> help the last /8 pool become even larger >>>>> >>>>> It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >>>>> >>>>> So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion >>>> >>>> Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would >>>> probably grow a little more than without this. >>>>>> The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware >>>>>> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >>>>>> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. >>>>> >>>>> Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion. >>>> >>>> As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I >>>> would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here >>>> is the statistics. >>>> >>>> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>>> | seller | /22s | >>>> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>>> | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | >>>> | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | >>>> | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | >>>> | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | >>>> | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | >>>> +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ >>>> >>>> Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from >>>> the last /8. >>>> >>>> It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the >>>> activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. >>>> >>>> Ciprian >>> >>> -- >>> With best regards, Vladimir Andreev >>> General director, QuickSoft LLC >>> Tel: +7 903 1750503 > > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 > From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 19:22:44 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:22:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <557720E4.9020900@nethinks.com> Hi, > Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my > opinion the adoption of this policy will : > - increase membership fees Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by abusing the policy to limit IPv4 usage will be incentivised NOT to keep opening LIRs and by that not bring additional income to RIPE? I doubt that not gaining from hoarders will increase cost for RIPE and therefore its members ... last time I checked, RIPE's income was rather stable and usually well on the black side ... why do you believe this policy change will alter that? > - increase IPv4 address prices ... but only for companies unwilling to get bye with what they have and push IPv6 deployment and growth ... of course this may put some strain to newcomers, but imagine the strain on newcomers if they can't receive ANY IPv4 from RIRs anymore because hoarders have ensured that RIRs don't have any available anymore, thus requiring them to get their required IPv4 address on the market for even higher prices ... > - help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not > care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's > issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool > that would just keep growing "forever". An additional /22 you give out today because you don't see a problem TODAY can't just be recovered tomorrow when a new LIR needs a /22 and you don't have any available anymore ... that's why the community HAS to think of tomorrow's problems instead of just living in the today! > of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware > that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. With the growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, prices will go up, making even the currently discussed policy change unsuited to keep people from gaming the system ... at current rate, the cost for a /22 network through LIR registration is roughly at 2?/IP. The policy change raises that to 4? ... what if you can get 10?/IP? 150% profit for a /22 is a pretty convincing business model ... -garry From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 19:46:05 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:46:05 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557720E4.9020900@nethinks.com> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557720E4.9020900@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <5577265D.1080300@ip-broker.uk> Hi Garry, On 6/9/2015 8:22 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > Hi, >> Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my >> opinion the adoption of this policy will : >> - increase membership fees > Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by > abusing the policy to limit IPv4 usage will be incentivised NOT to keep > opening LIRs and by that not bring additional income to RIPE? I doubt > that not gaining from hoarders will increase cost for RIPE and therefore > its members ... last time I checked, RIPE's income was rather stable and > usually well on the black side ... why do you believe this policy change > will alter that? It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee. I think it can be considered a "hoarding tax" which at this moment seems quite considerable when compared to the profit of the "hoarder". We all benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established. >> - increase IPv4 address prices > ... but only for companies unwilling to get bye with what they have and > push IPv6 deployment and growth ... of course this may put some strain > to newcomers, but imagine the strain on newcomers if they can't receive > ANY IPv4 from RIRs anymore because hoarders have ensured that RIRs don't > have any available anymore, thus requiring them to get their required > IPv4 address on the market for even higher prices ... I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the world, long time before the "exhaustion". It's not that easy to achieve full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of IPv4 resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give up on IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't exclude the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments and their problems. >> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of > addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies > cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job > well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are > still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. >> A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not >> care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's >> issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool >> that would just keep growing "forever". > An additional /22 you give out today because you don't see a problem > TODAY can't just be recovered tomorrow when a new LIR needs a /22 and > you don't have any available anymore ... that's why the community HAS to > think of tomorrow's problems instead of just living in the today! All IPs that are bought today cost money and I'm sure everyone that gets them, needs them. It's not like in the past when you could get a /12 for free. Therefore I would try to help those that need today IPs and not those that keep them waiting for the price to grow. >> of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware >> that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. > With the growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, prices will go up, making > even the currently discussed policy change unsuited to keep people from > gaming the system ... at current rate, the cost for a /22 network > through LIR registration is roughly at 2?/IP. The policy change raises > that to 4? ... what if you can get 10?/IP? 150% profit for a /22 is a > pretty convincing business model ... Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd. From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 19:54:49 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:54:49 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> And this is the final argument that this policy has no positive effect. It will not prevent the current practice as the 2 top traders of last /8 IPs know how to work around it and now probably even more will know that too. Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and I'll fully support it. In my opinion all the discussions regarding this policy only helped abusers learn how to abuse more and opened the eyes to others on how to abuse, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Limited On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Petr Umelov wrote: > *Attention > > 09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" : >> On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >>>> help the last /8 pool become even larger >>> >>> It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together. >>> >>> So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion >> From Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz Tue Jun 9 20:01:23 2015 From: Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBDYWxldGth?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:01:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a): > I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, > analysis of the policy effects. > > Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my > opinion the adoption of this policy will : > - increase membership fees > - increase IPv4 address prices > - help the last /8 pool become even larger Hello, the most important impact of the policy in my opinion is that is will make life harder for LIRs that are not really going to make assignments from the allocation although they confirmed they will do so prior receiving it. (ripe-643 5.1 par. 3) This is clearly abusing of the existing policy. As most assignments will last for more than two years, there is no real danger for legitimate LIRs that are being set up in order to start some Internet business (or even expand it beyond 1024 IPv4s if the IPv6 development still goes slower than it should) Therefore, I support 2015-01. -- Ond?ej Caletka -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5580 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 20:25:34 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:25:34 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. Ciprian Nica On 6/9/2015 9:01 PM, Ond?ej Caletka wrote: > Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a): >> I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, >> analysis of the policy effects. >> >> Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my >> opinion the adoption of this policy will : >> - increase membership fees >> - increase IPv4 address prices >> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > > Hello, > > the most important impact of the policy in my opinion is that is will > make life harder for LIRs that are not really going to make assignments > from the allocation although they confirmed they will do so prior > receiving it. (ripe-643 5.1 par. 3) This is clearly abusing of the > existing policy. > > As most assignments will last for more than two years, there is no real > danger for legitimate LIRs that are being set up in order to start some > Internet business (or even expand it beyond 1024 IPv4s if the IPv6 > development still goes slower than it should) > > Therefore, I support 2015-01. > > -- > Ond?ej Caletka > From tim at haitabu.net Tue Jun 9 20:59:24 2015 From: tim at haitabu.net (Tim Kleefass) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:59:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5577378C.50905@haitabu.net> On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. +1 Cheers, Tim From frettled at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 21:15:39 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:15:39 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > is not equal to solving the problem. > Solving the problem 100% and perfectly is utopia. This is one step in the right direction, and as we are discussing how to ensure both some fairness and predictability, there will be more steps. So instead of fighting every single step along the way, please help us move along. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 21:28:48 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:28:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5577265D.1080300@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557720E4.9020900@nethinks.com> <5577265D.1080300@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <55773E70.9020400@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > Hi Garry, > > It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee. > I think it can be considered a "hoarding tax" which at this moment seems > quite considerable when compared to the profit of the "hoarder". We all > benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore > the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established. > I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the > world, long time before the "exhaustion". It's not that easy to > achieve full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of > IPv4 resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give > up on IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't > exclude the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in > Amsterdam maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments > and their problems. .. just as there have been problems for early ISPs on IPv4 ... what's the relevance of that in this context? "It's hard to deploy v6, so we need to stick to v4!" ??? >>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger >> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of >> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies >> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job >> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are >> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions > that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will > push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be > IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many > will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 deployment. Good. So what do you believe would happen if all RIRs dropped IPv4 conservation policies tomorrow. Let's say the impeding doom of no IPv4 addresses available would push everybody to ask for additional addresses, causing all addresses being used up by December 31st. Do you believe that all ISPs _AND_USERS_ would be v6-ready by that date? Or Dec 31st 2016? What about 2017? Personally, I reckon if we all (all ISPs, all users, all IoT devices) made a migration by 2020 I'd be really surprised ... Sure, impending doom (IPv4 runout) might speed migration up to a certain degree, but corporations move slow. Heck, we still have analog modem dial-ups in certain (many?) parts of the world. Do you really believe the Internet can get around without using v4 any time soon? And that's the whole point of the policy - ensuring that new entries to the market - be it ISPs or companies - are still able to receive at least a basic set of v4 addresses for foreseeable time, otherwise they will need to find someone willing to sell them addresses, most likely at some inflated prices ... RIR's policies are the one thing that keeps prices DOWN, because legitimate use has a calculable pricetag and does not rely on "free market" ... > Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported > by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In > a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there > would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from > those who don't use them, that would really help. But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go away. -garry From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 9 21:49:57 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <55774365.9050801@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > is not equal to solving the problem. _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be available anymore ... -garry From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 21:53:17 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55773E70.9020400@nethinks.com> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557720E4.9020900@nethinks.com> <5577265D.1080300@ip-broker.uk> <55773E70.9020400@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <5577442D.7060903@ip-broker.uk> Hi, On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: >>>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger >>> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of >>> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies >>> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job >>> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are >>> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... >> Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions >> that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will >> push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be >> IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many >> will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. > OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting > yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 > deployment. As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think it's usefull to elaborate on that. >> Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported >> by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In >> a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there >> would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from >> those who don't use them, that would really help. > But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to > reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just > by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go away. Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of previous policies. I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd. From ripe at opteamax.de Tue Jun 9 21:57:37 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > I'll fully support it. The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool. The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is not being really used for a while. Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? Sorry, could not resist to point on that. Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. Best regards -- Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From tore at fud.no Tue Jun 9 21:59:57 2015 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20150609215957.407aba88@envy.fud.no> Hi Ciprian, * Ciprian Nica > What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > To summarize the effects will be : > - higher membership fees Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would not reverse this trend. Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as possible. > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on the other hand only 425,625 addresses. So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. Tore From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 22:00:55 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55774365.9050801@nethinks.com> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <557729F3.5040004@cesnet.cz> <55772F9E.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <55774365.9050801@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <557745F7.8060102@ip-broker.uk> There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > Guten Tag, >> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder >> is not equal to solving the problem. > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > available anymore ... > > -garry > From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 22:16:27 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801@ip-broker.uk> Hi Jens, I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought something is wrong. I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s should be somehow persuaded to give them back. When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it. Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit. UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the elefants. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> >> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and >> I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > From borhan.h at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 22:01:29 2015 From: borhan.h at gmail.com (Borhan Habibi) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:01:29 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem -1 to this proposal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 22:27:31 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:27:31 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +0000, Borhan Habibi wrote: > I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > > -1 to this proposal I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning. Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your friends to post a "-1". Come up with arguments. 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 leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Jun 9 22:28:17 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 20:28:17 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> Message-ID: <37d95635000c4ee8b399ad428567aef6@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi, Opteamax GmbH wrote: [...] > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. Without speaking for or against the policy, I'd like to point out that there definitely are cases where unique addresses are required, despite not announcing the route to all of autonomous systems. There are plenty of RFCs explaining why. It should also be obvious that even if 50 /8s were recovered they would not be enough to meet demand. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and more than half do not yet have Internet access. IPv4 is not a sustainable resource. Regards, Leo Vegoda From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 22:30:42 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:30:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2660451433865863@web30o.yandex.ru> References: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> <2660451433865863@web30o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609203042.GD54385@Space.Net> hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:04:23PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > | 2013-12 | 1 | > | 2014-01 | 5 | > | 2014-02 | 9 | > | 2014-03 | 3 | > | 2014-04 | 2 | > | 2014-05 | 6 | > | 2014-06 | 7 | > | 2014-07 | 6 | > | 2014-08 | 6 | single digit here, for a long time > | 2014-09 | 15 | > | 2014-10 | 15 | > | 2014-11 | 17 | doubling to tripling > | 2014-12 | 38 | > | 2015-01 | 21 | > | 2015-02 | 19 | > | 2015-03 | 25 | > | 2015-04 | 39 | jumping up to 7 times the level it was a year ago This *is* significant. Thanks a lot for making it so clear. 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 gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 22:32:01 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:32:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> References: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609203201.GE54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:07:59PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started > > over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into > > it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable > > projection. > > So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? We see behaviour that is unwanted, and is violating the expressed spirit of the last /8 policy. And your own numbers nicely demonstrated that this is growing quite fast. So, thanks for making the point that this policy is indeed necessary. 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 vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 22:35:11 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:35:11 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable. 09.06.2015, 23:27, "Gert Doering" : > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +0000, Borhan Habibi wrote: >> ?I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem >> >> ?-1 to this proposal > > I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the > very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG > list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning. > > Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your > friends to post a "-1". Come up with arguments. > > 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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From catrangiumarius at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 22:18:56 2015 From: catrangiumarius at gmail.com (Marius Catrangiu) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:18:56 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> Message-ID: I fully support this (mail from opteamax gmbh) point of view! and, of course the policy proposal. In my opinion it's a bad thing that RIPE did not have strong (backed up with strong detection of unused pools) policies even from the start. Thinks are very complicated and i get that, problems can't be foreseen in future and it's easy to judge now how thins could be made easier/simpler but it's not late to start somewhere. Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump Management) too. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > > I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > > -- > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > -- Catrangiu Marius Mobil: 0770481857 Mail: catrangiumarius at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 22:40:57 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:40:57 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609215957.407aba88@envy.fud.no> References: <843761433841414@web13h.yandex.ru> <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609215957.407aba88@envy.fud.no> Message-ID: <55774F59.3050402@ip-broker.uk> Hi Tore, On 6/9/2015 10:59 PM, Tore Anderson wrote: > Hi Ciprian, > > * Ciprian Nica > >> What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the >> community will benefit from it or some small group of people. >> >> To summarize the effects will be : >> - higher membership fees > > Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the > membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. > > [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 > The LIRs from Russia are 2nd after UK : http://www.ip-broker.uk/index.php?page=statistics.php&chart=lirs > The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining > in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to > stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would > not reverse this trend. > Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay > the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that > means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to > increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much > better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs > and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to > *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep > paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as > possible. I didn't say that I can measure how much it will affect but on the short term it will affect for sure the membership fees. Every newcomer will become an LIR and pay the fees so that won't change anything whether the abusers exist or not. For example the 2 mentioned entities have registered 61 new LIRs and sold the IPs. Let's say that paid 2000 signup fee and this year's fee in full which would mean a total 219.600 EUR. That probably covers the costs for organizing at least a few RIPE meetings. If the abusers would not have sold the IPs, the buyers would have got them from someone that received the IPs for free, maybe in 2012 and maybe more expensive. So I stick to my opinion that the membership fees will be affected. >> What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? >> The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? > > The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has > been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. > > [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml > > This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, > and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it > (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is > not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any > significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). > > So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue > to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool > in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start > seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. > > For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 > days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has > been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on > the other hand only 425,625 addresses. > > So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a > valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten > years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus > whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. There is another source for IPs, the ones that were returned to RIPE either by LIRs that went bankrupt or by end users that didn't pay the maintenance fee or also went bankrupt. From what I remember there were quite a few PIs recovered by RIPE after the independent resources tax was introduced. Ciprian From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 22:45:37 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:45:37 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> Message-ID: <55775071.2040207@ip-broker.uk> > Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE > region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be > implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits > over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump > Management) too. Romania was for a while the #1 in the world at IPv6 deployment and even though you didn't take part in the IPv6 deployment at that time, you know very well how everything went. Obviously there are interests of making profit over IPv4 extinction but nobody from Romania would have been able to influence that. Ciprian From vladimir at quick-soft.net Tue Jun 9 22:46:59 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:46:59 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <20150609203201.GE54385@Space.Net> References: <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <2632191433865061@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609155830.GQ54385@Space.Net> <2667931433866079@web30o.yandex.ru> <20150609203201.GE54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3478961433882819@web10h.yandex.ru> As said many-many times /22 reselling from last /8 is not significant. I really tired to repeat this. And It's objective view. You (and anybody else) can calculate all digest which were brought and make sure it's really so. But I hear again and again that "we should stop abusing", "it's not intend of last /8 policy" etc WITHOUT real arguments. It will be better to start from owners of really big (and unused) blocks which were allocated by RIPE NCC to such owners before last /8. 09.06.2015, 23:32, "Gert Doering" : > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:07:59PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ?> With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started >> ?> over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into >> ?> it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable >> ?> projection. >> >> ?So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? > > We see behaviour that is unwanted, and is violating the expressed spirit > of the last /8 policy. > > And your own numbers nicely demonstrated that this is growing quite fast. > > So, thanks for making the point that this policy is indeed necessary. > > 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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From gert at space.net Tue Jun 9 22:47:53 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:47:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable. Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward". If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't consider this an overly strong argument either - right. This is part of the WG chair's job when judging consensus. Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal (and so we don't). There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process is fairly asymmetric here. Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point. 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 matei at profisol.ro Tue Jun 9 22:48:39 2015 From: matei at profisol.ro (Storch Matei) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:48:39 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> Message-ID: Hi, If RIPE would enforce (just like with asn) the announcement of received /22s within a period of 1-2 months after the allocation, hoarding would be stopped. The sellers would not be able to advertise them as "brand new never used", as this detail gives them the most of their value. Also, reinforcing the need of justification for requesting the /22, would slow the hoarders, as they would need to come up with (verifyable) justification. There were lots of valid points against this policy, because it does not address the real problem, and moreso, RIPE NCC directly said that in their opinion it will have no effect over the small hoarding that is going on now. Please read the RIPE NCC impact analysis and you will see this. Matei Storch Profisol Telecom 0728.555.004 > On 9 iun. 2015, at 23:18, Marius Catrangiu wrote: > > I fully support this (mail from opteamax gmbh) point of view! and, of course the policy proposal. > In my opinion it's a bad thing that RIPE did not have strong (backed up with strong detection of unused pools) policies even from the start. > Thinks are very complicated and i get that, problems can't be foreseen in future and it's easy to judge now how thins could be made easier/simpler but it's not late to start somewhere. > Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump Management) too. > >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: >> >> On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> >> > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and >> > I'll fully support it. >> >> The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually >> refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool. >> >> The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" >> of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying >> why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal >> would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one >> hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really >> needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if >> that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is >> not being really used for a while. >> >> Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not >> publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd >> have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the >> routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public >> IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 >> with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many >> of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a >> blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. >> >> ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? >> >> Sorry, could not resist to point on that. >> >> Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and >> raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when >> they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. >> >> Best regards >> >> -- >> Jens Ott >> >> Opteamax GmbH >> >> Simrockstr. 4b >> 53619 Rheinbreitbach >> >> Tel.: +49 2224 969500 >> Fax: +49 2224 97691059 >> Email: jo at opteamax.de >> >> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur >> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > > -- > Catrangiu Marius > Mobil: 0770481857 > Mail: catrangiumarius at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at opteamax.de Tue Jun 9 22:51:22 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:51:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <37d95635000c4ee8b399ad428567aef6@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> <37d95635000c4ee8b399ad428567aef6@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: <557751CA.4000906@opteamax.de> Hi Leo, > > Without speaking for or against the policy, I'd like to point out that there definitely are cases where unique addresses are required, despite not announcing the route to all of autonomous systems. There are plenty of RFCs explaining why. It should also be obvious that even if 50 /8s were recovered they would not be enough to meet demand. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and more than half do not yet have Internet access. IPv4 is not a sustainable resource. I agree with what you say, and I did not want to bring up the idea of "IPv4 is endless" ... that's actually the reason why I said as much as they really need, because what would happen, if people couldn't make that much money with V4? I personally know hosters who say "why should we rollout IPv6, when we can lease single IPv4-Addresses to our customers for 5 EUR a month ... we do have a a quarter of a million addresses, whereof we lease 100k for 5 EUR a month ... meaning half a million Euro pure revenue each month ... so tell me one reason why I should stop printing money with that?" The "big old players" which intentionally do not roll out IPv6, because they earn much more money with V4, would finally start rolling out V6 if this money-printer wouldn't work anymore because unused space would be withdrawn. BR Jens > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > > !DSPAM:637,55774d62133346602313544! > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 22:55:59 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:55:59 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <557752DF.9080704@ip-broker.uk> Hi, > I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the > very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG > list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning. I admit being "guilty" of not saying anything before. I have discussed several times with the initiator of the proposal and actually didn't expect this would get so many "+1s". I just felt that I should express my opinion whether it matters or not. Obviously all +1s or -1s should be ignored, but also I think that all discussions that are not strictly related to the proposal should be ignored. Ask yourself if the proposal has real benefits or it is just something like "let's get drunk with tap water". I presented my arguments, I hope as objective as possible. If the policy passes it will be good for me as a broker and if it doesn't pass it will be good for me as an LIR and member of the RIPE community. Ciprian Nica From elvis at v4escrow.net Tue Jun 9 23:06:17 2015 From: elvis at v4escrow.net (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:06:17 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <89280721-B869-4CF5-BF50-162E24F1499F@v4escrow.net> Hi, Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > On Jun 9, 2015, at 20:54, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > In my opinion all the discussions regarding this policy only helped > abusers learn how to abuse more and opened the eyes to others on how to > abuse, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. this is not nice.. did not expect this coming from you Ciprian. regards, elvis From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Jun 9 22:58:23 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:58:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ciprian: I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up 100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality here and everybody have to deal with it. And for the /22, I fully support the policy and I believe such abuse should not happen. and such abuse practically turns the last /8 policy useless. If we should allow such abuse then why shouldn't we just completely deplete the IPv4 instead of reserving the last /8. One thing do worries me though, by doing a simple math: (2000+1600+1600)/1000=5.2Euro/IP in cost, if future IP price reaches 10 Euro or up, we might still not able to stop such abuse, unless we make the last /22 totally untransferable. Just my two cents. With regards. Lu On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, 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: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Garry Glendown) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Opteamax GmbH) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Tore Anderson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 6. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200 > From: Garry Glendown > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774365.9050801 at nethinks.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Guten Tag, > > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > > is not equal to solving the problem. > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > available anymore ... > > -garry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica > To: Garry Glendown , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577442D.7060903 at ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > > On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > > >>>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > >>> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of > >>> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about > policies > >>> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job > >>> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are > >>> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > >> Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions > >> that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will > >> push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be > >> IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many > >> will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a > decision. > > OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting > > yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 > > deployment. > > As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 > exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass > to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think > it's usefull to elaborate on that. > > >> Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported > >> by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In > >> a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there > >> would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from > >> those who don't use them, that would really help. > > But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to > > reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just > > by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go > away. > > Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of > previous policies. > > I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed > everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. > I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. > > As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help > conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by > adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to > polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. > > Ciprian Nica > IP Broker Ltd. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200 > From: Opteamax GmbH > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774531.9050009 at opteamax.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > > I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > > -- > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200 > From: Tore Anderson > To: Ciprian Nica > Cc: Gert Doering , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <20150609215957.407aba88 at envy.fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Ciprian, > > * Ciprian Nica > > > What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > > > To summarize the effects will be : > > - higher membership fees > > Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the > membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. > > [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 > > The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining > in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to > stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would > not reverse this trend. > > Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay > the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that > means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to > increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much > better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs > and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to > *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep > paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as > possible. > > > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? > > The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has > been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. > > [4] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml > > This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, > and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it > (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is > not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any > significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). > > So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue > to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool > in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start > seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. > > For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 > days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has > been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on > the other hand only 425,625 addresses. > > So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a > valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten > years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus > whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. > > Tore > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica > To: Garry Glendown , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <557745F7.8060102 at ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get > affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their > investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy > will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > Guten Tag, > >> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > >> is not equal to solving the problem. > > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > > available anymore ... > > > > -garry > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica > To: Opteamax GmbH , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801 at ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Jens, > > I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was > announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that > only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought > something is wrong. > > I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs > but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart > enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. > > If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking > back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s > should be somehow persuaded to give them back. > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > use and they can't give up on it. > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > that would be a real benefit. > > UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs > and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the > last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the > elefants. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > >> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > >> I'll fully support it. > > > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > > not being really used for a while. > > > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > > > Best regards > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20 > ************************************************* > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Tue Jun 9 23:19:08 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:19:08 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557751CA.4000906@opteamax.de> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> <37d95635000c4ee8b399ad428567aef6@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> <557751CA.4000906@opteamax.de> Message-ID: <91b0a2b069df4bce8d5d7a511ea6771b@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Opteamax GmbH wrote: [...] > The "big old players" which intentionally do not roll out IPv6, because > they earn much more money with V4, would finally start rolling out V6 if > this money-printer wouldn't work anymore because unused space would be > withdrawn. I look at the publicly reported measurements from content publishers like Akamai: http://www.akamai.com/ipv6 Google: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption Cloudflare: https://blog.cloudflare.com/four-years-later-and-cloudflare-is-still-doing-ipv6-automatically/ and see fairly steep curves that I would not enjoy cycling up. And when I look at the trend graphs for the top 10 networks reporting via http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ I see something very similar. That's clearly not the whole story but it's certainly not all doom and gloom. Regards, Leo Vegoda From office at ip-broker.uk Tue Jun 9 23:22:50 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:22:50 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <89280721-B869-4CF5-BF50-162E24F1499F@v4escrow.net> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <89280721-B869-4CF5-BF50-162E24F1499F@v4escrow.net> Message-ID: <5577592A.2040804@ip-broker.uk> Hi Elvis, I did tell you several times in private that in my opinion this proposal brings no benefits to the community and it only will help abusers learn how to do it better. That's the only reason I have considered it a mistake. Of course I appreciate your effort and the original intent. You already know all my opinions on this. You did put a lot of work into it and for that I hope it will get adopted. Ciprian On 6/10/2015 12:06 AM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi, > > Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. > >> On Jun 9, 2015, at 20:54, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> >> In my opinion all the discussions regarding this policy only helped >> abusers learn how to abuse more and opened the eyes to others on how to >> abuse, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > this is not nice.. did not expect this coming from you Ciprian. > > regards, > elvis > From matei at profisol.ro Tue Jun 9 23:35:51 2015 From: matei at profisol.ro (Storch Matei) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:35:51 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly). I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people. Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with. My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example. If this is a private group were only certain RIPE members are allowed to raise concerns and have them dealt with, please let me know and I will not post anymore. But it is my understanding that RIPE is a community in which each member has EXACTLY the same rights and obligations as another member (even when there were different LIR categories, rights and obligations were the same, regardless if the category). I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h period to vote... Matei Storch Profisol Telecom 0728.555.004 > On 9 iun. 2015, at 23:47, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable. > > Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that > I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments > the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward". > > If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would > show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't > consider this an overly strong argument either - right. This is part of > the WG chair's job when judging consensus. > > > Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been > addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible > to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on > such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal > (and so we don't). > > There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process > is fairly asymmetric here. > > Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks > this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal > itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point. > > 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 From ripe at opteamax.de Wed Jun 10 06:37:54 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:37:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Borhan, Hi List, hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing the community! To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change only appear more important. I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy" Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the community actually want something much more restrictive! BR Jens Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi : >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > >-1 to this proposal > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Jun 10 07:56:41 2015 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:56:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5577D199.9000902@schiefner.de> Dear Vladimir, On 09.06.2015 22:35, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable. please spare us all this kind of ridiculousness in your argument. Thanks, -C. >09.06.2015, 23:27, "Gert Doering" : >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +0000, Borhan Habibi wrote: >>> I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem >>> >>> -1 to this proposal >> >> I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the >> very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG >> list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning. >> >> Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your >> friends to post a "-1". Come up with arguments. >> >> 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 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 From vladimir at quick-soft.net Wed Jun 10 08:09:04 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:09:04 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <5577D199.9000902@schiefner.de> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <5577D199.9000902@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <4165711433916544@web1m.yandex.ru> You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support his statements. 10.06.2015, 08:56, "Carsten Schiefner" : > ?Dear Vladimir, > > ?On 09.06.2015 22:35, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ??So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable. > > ?please spare us all this kind of ridiculousness in your argument. > > ?Thanks, > > ?????????-C. > >> ?09.06.2015, 23:27, "Gert Doering" : >>> ??Hi, >>> >>> ??On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +0000, Borhan Habibi wrote: >>>> ???I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem >>>> >>>> ???-1 to this proposal >>> >>> ??I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the >>> ??very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG >>> ??list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning. >>> >>> ??Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your >>> ??friends to post a "-1". Come up with arguments. >>> >>> ??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 >> >> ??-- >> ??With best regards, Vladimir Andreev >> ??General director, QuickSoft LLC >> ??Tel: +7 903 1750503 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Jun 10 08:22:20 2015 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <4165711433916544@web1m.yandex.ru> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <5577D199.9000902@schiefner.de> <4165711433916544@web1m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705@schiefner.de> Dear Vladimir, On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. first of all, I am not angry. I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these see-through non-arguments. Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt to blurr this discussion. Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to a proposal and objecting to it. In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up with. In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear reasons for it. It is really that simple. > P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch > Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support > his statements. I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the fuzz. Thanks and best, -C. From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 09:18:44 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008@ip-broker.uk> Hi, > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in Netherlands. > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems. > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy" I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while the problems might become worse. Ciprian From LIR at bva.bund.de Wed Jun 10 09:20:24 2015 From: LIR at bva.bund.de (LIR (BIT I 5)) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi at all, +1 for Jens +1 for the proposal 2015-01 Kind regards, Carsten Br?ckner LIR de.government -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Borhan, Hi List, hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing the community! To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change only appear more important. I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy" Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the community actually want something much more restrictive! BR Jens Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi : >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > >-1 to this proposal > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Jun 10 09:50:04 2015 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <5577499B.6020801@ip-broker.uk> References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> <5577499B.6020801@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > use and they can't give up on it. Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > that would be a real benefit. Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to help. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Wed Jun 10 09:58:32 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <5576BA07.6050406@nethinks.com> <1715691433846717@web15g.yandex.ru> <5576C75A.3050705@nethinks.com> <3322551433860869@web11g.yandex.ru> <55770419.5040904@ip-broker.uk> <20150609154029.GN54385@Space.Net> <55770B53.90702@ip-broker.uk> <20150609155616.GP54385@Space.Net> <55770FCE.5030907@ip-broker.uk> <2694871433866784@web30o.yandex.ru> <5577154D.6000701@ip-broker.uk> <2855841433868223@web5o.yandex.ru> <55772869.1080003@ip-broker.uk> <55774531.9050009@opteamax.de> <5577499B.6020801@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Hi, We @ as198988 support the proposal ... Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with an ability to create backward compatible translation systems +1 mofos On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in >> use and they can't give up on it. >> > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, >> that would be a real benefit. >> > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > help. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saeed at ipm.ir Wed Jun 10 11:13:32 2015 From: saeed at ipm.ir (Saeed Khademi) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:43:32 +0330 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <5577E4D4.5000008@ip-broker.uk> References: <5577E4D4.5000008@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <2FAD7D57E34D4ADDA222E50219D038DE@Saeed> Hello Dear Colleagues, I am reading all of these comments and statements without giving any vote on the matter. By reading this one, I thought I may write some sentences. > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term > solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a > stronger policy ..... why not go for that stronger policy right now? why not stop transferring all IPV4 addresses at all? closing all of these businesses. Isn't it true that we are encouraging people toward IPV6? So, isn't it true that letting people to transfer their spaces (selling them), will provide additional addresses to those who need it and as a result it delays IPV6 deployment? with kind regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Ciprian Nica Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:48 AM To: Opteamax GmbH ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term > solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a > stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be > transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that > natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community > will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in Netherlands. > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set > up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There > is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and > aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating > gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of > stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not > transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see > a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The > default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar > requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered > will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer > becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and > needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently > disappear. If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems. > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while the problems might become worse. Ciprian From Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com Wed Jun 10 10:28:11 2015 From: Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com (Torunn.Narvestad at telenor.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:28:11 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DC95C42FAD4574E8F3FCD347FEC5AC03F4ED91F@TNS-FBU-24-203.corp.telenor.no> My support. Regards, Torunn Narvestad ________________________________________ Fra: address-policy-wg [address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] på vegne av Marco Schmidt [mschmidt at ripe.net] Sendt: 11. mai 2015 13:43 Til: policy-announce at ripe.net Kopi: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 10:50:30 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:50:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. *"* *Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out formillions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders ofthe last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands."* My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then bribe people. You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, 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: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Carsten Schiefner) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (LIR (BIT I 5)) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Mikael Abrahamsson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 > From: Carsten Schiefner > To: Vladimir Andreev > Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705 at schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Vladimir, > > On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. > > first of all, I am not angry. > > I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these > see-through non-arguments. > > Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt > to blurr this discussion. > > Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to > a proposal and objecting to it. > > In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the > proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up > with. > > In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear > reasons for it. > > It is really that simple. > > > P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch > > Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support > > his statements. > > I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the > fuzz. > > Thanks and best, > > -C. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica > To: Opteamax GmbH , address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008 at ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the > people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. > > Let me give you an example: > > - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 > - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 > - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 > > All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that > time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 > deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 > and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for > such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). > > Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is > now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for > millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of > the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC > noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything > about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I > said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll > have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in > Netherlands. > > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to > set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. > There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and > aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating > gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of > stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not > transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see > a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The > default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar > requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered > will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer > becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and > needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently > disappear. > > If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe > we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not > waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems. > > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no > positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while > the problems might become worse. > > Ciprian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000 > From: "LIR (BIT I 5)" > To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi at all, > +1 for Jens > +1 for the proposal 2015-01 > Kind regards, > Carsten Br?ckner > LIR de.government > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > > Hi Borhan, > Hi List, > > hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while > I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... > > Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because > I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" > gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused > exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing > into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy > which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing > the community! > > To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change > only appear more important. > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set > up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There > is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. > If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways > between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger > version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And > they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not > requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all > resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue > for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers > obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most > cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that > discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the > community actually want something much more restrictive! > > BR Jens > > > Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi : > >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > > > >-1 to this proposal > > > > > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mikael Abrahamsson > To: Ciprian Nica > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > > use and they can't give up on it. > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > > that would be a real benefit. > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > help. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100 > From: Tom Smyth > To: Gert Doering > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: > VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > We @ as198988 support the proposal ... > Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions > that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin > contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for > years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. > > I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as > possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with > an ability to create backward compatible translation systems > > +1 mofos > On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > >> use and they can't give up on it. > >> > > > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. > > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > >> that would be a real benefit. > >> > > > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this > space, > > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount > > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M > EUR > > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people > do > > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on > this > > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them > they > > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So > > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > > help. > > > > -- > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/74fa72e7/attachment.html > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 25 > ************************************************* > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at opteamax.de Wed Jun 10 10:53:13 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:53:13 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <2FAD7D57E34D4ADDA222E50219D038DE@Saeed> References: <5577E4D4.5000008@ip-broker.uk> <2FAD7D57E34D4ADDA222E50219D038DE@Saeed> Message-ID: <5577FAF9.7080408@opteamax.de> Hi Saeed, > > why not go for that stronger policy right now? Policy definition process is taking a while. From first attention on this topic (afaik at RIPE 69 in London) until now it took around 8 months, before it is adopted around 12 month. With adopting this one now, we prevent that all rest of /22s we have, is now being hoarded and sold by someone, before a stricter policy is defined. > why not stop transferring all IPV4 addresses at all? closing all of > these businesses. > > Isn't it true that we are encouraging people toward IPV6? So, isn't it > true that letting people to transfer their spaces (selling them), > will provide additional addresses to those who need it and as a result > it delays IPV6 deployment? Exactly that's what I think and exactly that's the reason why I am absolutely with you to stop V4 transfers. There are legal cases (e.g. the merger of two Hosters (recent example HostEurope and Intergenia in Germany who actually both serve a couple of thousands of endusers and a renumbering or removing of their V4 would mean hurting the end-users). But those rare cases can be reasonably argued and therefore exceptions can be made. The hurdle for transfering by means of "how to justify need for transfer" only needs to be high enough, that it is not done "for fun". BR Jens > > with kind regards, > Saeed. > > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 11:03:48 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:03:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150610090348.GL54385@Space.Net> Dear AP WG, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:12PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. [..] > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. The review phase for this proposal is now over. Sander and I will now go over the long and intense discussion you had, try to filter out the content that is actually relevant to the proposal at hand, and then post the usual summary and a conclusion regarding consensus or not. I think all arguments have been heard and answered now - so please leave it to the chairs to sift through the heap and come to a conclusion. In other words: you can stop the shouting now. 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 arash_mpc at parsun.com Wed Jun 10 11:27:39 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:57:39 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Message-ID: <00e301d0a35f$b4d36d80$1e7a4880$@parsun.com> Hi Saeed, I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for 2 years for the new /22 blocks. Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. Regards, Arash Naderpour From annabechcicki at yahoo.com Wed Jun 10 11:40:32 2015 From: annabechcicki at yahoo.com (Anna Bechcicki) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:40:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis In-Reply-To: <00e301d0a35f$b4d36d80$1e7a4880$@parsun.com> References: <00e301d0a35f$b4d36d80$1e7a4880$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <279548235.100714.1433929232513.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Hello! I was watching for this discussion for a long time and decided to tell my opinion. I really don't understand why the chair doesn't keep neutrality, supports one side and doesn't support another side. Moreover, if chair reads any opinion in the contrary to this proposal, he finds flimsy arguments to disagree with it. I won't be surprised, if you ban my account in this list, but I should ask you: Don't you think that someone can alert all other members about possibility to open multiple LIR accounts? This can be done in case of current proposal acceptance in order to revenge for unfair decision. If this happens /8 will be exhausted NOT in 3-5 years but in 1 year (maybe less, maybe more). And it will be just awful. Because of this we should take a fair decision and don't provoke retaliatory actions. Do not consider this a threat but I really think we should keep care. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:28 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: Hi Saeed, I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for 2 years for the new /22 blocks. Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. Regards, Arash Naderpour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arash_mpc at parsun.com Wed Jun 10 11:55:21 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:21 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150609083854.GT54385@Space.Net> References: <000301d0a22b$df352580$9d9f7080$@parsun.com> <20150608212051.GS54385@Space.Net> <002301d0a25f$41488950$c3d99bf0$@parsun.com> <20150609083854.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <00f301d0a363$94654920$bd2fdb60$@parsun.com> Hi Gert, You say it will not solve all other potential problems that exist or might exist and I agree with you here, but to me it cannot also solve the existing and known problem too. "making less attractive" is not also a good argument to support it, Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:09 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Gert Doering'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:21:49AM +0430, Arash Naderpour wrote: > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up > one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year > restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." It does what it intends to do, and that is, make fast-trading (open LIR, get /22, sell of, close LIR) less attractive. It will not solve all other potential problems that exist or might exist, so "it does not go far enough" is not a good argument to oppose what might achieved in this first step - of course, a second step can always follow. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From arash_mpc at parsun.com Wed Jun 10 12:03:20 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:33:20 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Message-ID: <00f601d0a364$b15996c0$140cc440$@parsun.com> Hi Erik, It may increase the cost or make it make less attractive, but I believe it would be just a temporary affect. Making less attractive is not a good argument to support it (to me) Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Erik Bais [mailto:erik at bais.name] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:48 AM To: Arash Naderpour; 'Gert Doering' Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Arash, > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up > one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year > restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 12:07:45 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:07:45 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> Hi Lu, On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Ciprian: > > Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at > least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide > their identity. So I will responds: I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse. > Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of > three allocation you have mentioned. Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time the allocations were made to you as a natural person. > My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, > while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster > team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, > elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was > not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was > according to the policy. It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it > in a public space. That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. > And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any > of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much > double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your > allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please > help to clarify). Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this: > Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval > process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up > to 3 working days. > This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and > might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. > > If there are any questions do please let me know. > > Regards, > >David Hilario >RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst > More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think > this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out > there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). > > Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at > personal level again. Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. > Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and > not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this > to the community because this is not the first time personally attack > happening here(and not just to me and my company). I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? Yours, Ciprian Nica From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 12:14:34 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:14:34 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis In-Reply-To: <279548235.100714.1433929232513.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <00e301d0a35f$b4d36d80$1e7a4880$@parsun.com> <279548235.100714.1433929232513.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55780E0A.703@ip-broker.uk> I totally understand Gert for being annoyed by this kind of gmail/yahoo e-mails. Anna, if you have an opinion present it like I did and try to support it with arguments. And use your company e-mail if you are representing an LIR. Truth can't be shut up even by the devil's advocate. But bringing up threats is simply stupid. As Gert said, we're past the discussion phase and they will have to reach a decision. The discussions should not be just about this policy but we all should help solve problems that really exist and spend our efforts efficiently. Ciprian On 6/10/2015 12:40 PM, Anna Bechcicki wrote: > Hello! > > I was watching for this discussion for a long time and decided to tell my opinion. > > I really don't understand why the chair doesn't keep neutrality, supports one side and doesn't support another side. > Moreover, if chair reads any opinion in the contrary to this proposal, he finds flimsy arguments to disagree with it. > > I won't be surprised, if you ban my account in this list, but I should ask you: > Don't you think that someone can alert all other members about possibility to open multiple LIR accounts? > > This can be done in case of current proposal acceptance in order to revenge for unfair decision. > If this happens /8 will be exhausted NOT in 3-5 years but in 1 year (maybe less, maybe more). And it will be just awful. > > Because of this we should take a fair decision and don't provoke retaliatory actions. > > Do not consider this a threat but I really think we should keep care. > > > > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:28 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > > Hi Saeed, > > I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for > 2 years for the new /22 blocks. > > Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. > > Regards, > > Arash Naderpour > > > > > > > From Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz Wed Jun 10 12:20:08 2015 From: Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBDYWxldGth?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:20:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] about pre last-/8 hoarding In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55780F58.9090809@cesnet.cz> Hi, Dne 10.6.2015 v 10:50 Lu Heng napsal(a): > My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 > years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the > hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the > hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, > I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the > allocation I received was according to the policy. Sorry for off topic, but I would really appreciate some more details to support your statement. According to RIPEstat, none of your allocations have been seen in BGP in the year it has been allocated. Even though there was this policy that allocations should consider current needs plus 3 months only. I cannot understand how come you got another allocations even though your previous were still not functional on the Internet. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just cannot think of any plausible explanation. Best regards, Ond?ej Caletka -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5580 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 12:48:18 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:48:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150610104818.GS54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and > not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this > to the community because this is not the first time personally attack > happening here(and not just to me and my company). Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version " output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal. (And please DO NOT top-post, quoting a full mailing list digest underneath - *this* is something which might get the chair slightly angry) 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 12:48:00 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:48:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Hi See my reply below: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Hi Lu, > > On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi Ciprian: > > > > Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But > at > > least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide > > their identity. So I will responds: > > I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have > anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses > that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse. > > "Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. > Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of > > three allocation you have mentioned. > > Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time > the allocations were made to you as a natural person. > The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. > > My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, > > while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the > hostmaster > > team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back > then, > > elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was > > not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was > > according to the policy. > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by > the same person that has initiated this proposal. > Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes. However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal. And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business. > > You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing > it > > in a public space. > > That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. > Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? > > > And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in > any > > of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much > > double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your > > allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, > please > > help to clarify). > > Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very > convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I > worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over > 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about > half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I > received confirming this: > > > Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval > > process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up > > to 3 working days. > > This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and > > might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. > > > > If there are any questions do please let me know. > > > > Regards, > > > >David Hilario > >RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst > Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false. > > > More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think > > this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out > > there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for > example). > > > > Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at > > personal level again. > > Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. > Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. > > > Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and > > not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify > this > > to the community because this is not the first time personally attack > > happening here(and not just to me and my company). > > I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising > questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the > value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? > Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss it here). > > Yours, > Ciprian Nica > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Wed Jun 10 12:59:29 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:59:29 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610104818.GS54385@Space.Net> References: <20150610104818.GS54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150610105929.GB35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy >proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what >is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some >of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" >issue look fairly marginal. It is, however, not relevant to the 2015-01 discussion as that is solely about a loop-hole in the last /8 policy. Also it is used to impugn motives of participants and if that is ok now, I might have a thing or two to say as well... rgds, Sascha Luck From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 12:59:23 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610104818.GS54385@Space.Net> References: <20150610104818.GS54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert: I am very much surprise with your reply. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > > Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and > > not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify > this > > to the community because this is not the first time personally attack > > happening here(and not just to me and my company). > > Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put > on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but > that > is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, > 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version " output. > Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well. > While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal > under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or > has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed > make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal. > Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy. > (And please DO NOT top-post, quoting a full mailing list digest underneath > - *this* is something which might get the chair slightly angry) > I was replied on the daily summary mode of the mailing list, this was just normal to it, and now I turned it off. > > 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 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 13:02:41 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:02:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: > I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: > 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. > 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly). Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them. > I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people. I'm not "some people" :-) > Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with. This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science. > My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example. I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track discussions. Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present his findings. [..] > I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related > or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - > electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior > to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The > infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet > related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h > period to vote... No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list. (For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote) 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 13:08:09 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:08:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [OT] about pre last-/8 hoarding In-Reply-To: <55780F58.9090809@cesnet.cz> References: <55780F58.9090809@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: Hi It was definitely functional and announced. But on the other hand, it come down to our business operation and I do not feel it is the right place to share. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Ond?ej Caletka wrote: > Hi, > > Dne 10.6.2015 v 10:50 Lu Heng napsal(a): > > My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 > > years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the > > hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the > > hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, > > I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the > > allocation I received was according to the policy. > > Sorry for off topic, but I would really appreciate some more details to > support your statement. According to RIPEstat, none of your allocations > have been seen in BGP in the year it has been allocated. Even though > there was this policy that allocations should consider current needs > plus 3 months only. > > I cannot understand how come you got another allocations even though > your previous were still not functional on the Internet. I'm not > accusing you of anything, I just cannot think of any plausible explanation. > > Best regards, > Ond?ej Caletka > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 10 13:14:18 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:14:18 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: > Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, > everyone's opinion is listened to. > > Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of > show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, > I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these > are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do > not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't > dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, > this certainly will influence the way we look at them. well said. this is why we have humans for deciding these things and why i continue to support you and sander as co-chairs. thank you. randy From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 13:14:56 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:14:56 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> Hi, On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > "Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are > making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you > have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ? > The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. > > But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business > structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. % Version 1 of object "5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum: 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 netname: NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 descr: Heng Lu trading as "OutsideHeaven" country: NL org: ORG-HLta1-RIPE admin-c: OHS18-RIPE tech-c: OHS18-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: OH-MNT mnt-domains: OH-MNT mnt-routes: OVH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered 5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week later there were no more IPs left. >> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by >> the same person that has initiated this proposal. >> > > Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed > our application, yes. He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only support my opposition to this proposal. > However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large > request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and > I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the > most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not > make it personal. I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had the largest IPv6 deployment at that time. > And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole > community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP > broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not > more business. Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. >>> You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing >> it >>> in a public space. >> >> That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. >> > > Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in > which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody was using it on this list. >>> And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in >> any >>> of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much >>> double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your >>> allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, >> please >>> help to clarify). >> >> Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very >> convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I >> worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over >> 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about >> half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I >> received confirming this: >> >>> Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval >>> process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up >>> to 3 working days. >>> This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and >>> might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. >>> >>> If there are any questions do please let me know. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> David Hilario >>> RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst >> > > Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on > board involved in the registration service is totally false. I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I should have said the "guys from the top floor". > > >> >>> More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think >>> this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out >>> there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for >> example). >>> >>> Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at >>> personal level again. >> >> Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. >> Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. >> >>> Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and >>> not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify >> this >>> to the community because this is not the first time personally attack >>> happening here(and not just to me and my company). >> >> I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising >> questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the >> value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? >> > > Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value > of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, > the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the > internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as > much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the > current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we > should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss > it here). "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". When you accuse the 2 russians and other smaller profitors of abuse, then I can not take it seriously. You're too big compared to them (I hope you don't take this personally too). And now that you have shed some light and told us that Elvis, the inititor of this proposal is the one that approved all that outrageous allocations to you, I can only hope for some other sane persons to see which problems needs to be solved. Ciprian From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 13:25:00 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:25:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: Hi Ciprian: Your Email are full of false claim and accusation, none of them making sense as well as speaking from your knowledge, all of them are from your speculation, please verify your data before you post anything, and please stop post any of the personal information here any more. I will kindly ask chair again to stop such discussion about me and my company. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > > "Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you > are > > making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you > > have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. > > If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the > persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would > it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ? > "Previous abuse", where is your support for such accusation? > > > > The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. > > > > But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business > > structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list. > > > % Version 1 of object "5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255" > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. > > inetnum: 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 > netname: NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 > descr: Heng Lu trading as "OutsideHeaven" > country: NL > org: ORG-HLta1-RIPE > admin-c: OHS18-RIPE > tech-c: OHS18-RIPE > status: ALLOCATED PA > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-lower: OH-MNT > mnt-domains: OH-MNT > mnt-routes: OVH-MNT > source: RIPE # Filtered > > 5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week > later there were no more IPs left. > OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be relevant anyway. > > > >> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by > >> the same person that has initiated this proposal. > >> > > > > Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster > processed > > our application, yes. > > He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved > this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only > support my opposition to this proposal. > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. " And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. > > However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large > > request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, > and > > I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was > the > > most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do > not > > make it personal. > > I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly > but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had > the largest IPv6 deployment at that time. > Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common knowledge. > > > And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole > > community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP > > broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but > not > > more business. > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping > you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there > is no conflict of interests here. > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > >>> You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing > >> it > >>> in a public space. > >> > >> That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned. > >> > > > > Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in > > which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion? > > Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of > /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody > was using it on this list. > > Well, people can kill people does not justify you can do the same, as it is about me this time and I personally really not happy about this, so I will do possible things to stop such unlawful activity about us. > >>> And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in > >> any > >>> of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much > >>> double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your > >>> allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, > >> please > >>> help to clarify). > >> > >> Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very > >> convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I > >> worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over > >> 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about > >> half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I > >> received confirming this: > >> > >>> Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval > >>> process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up > >>> to 3 working days. > >>> This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and > >>> might change depending on the outcome of the approval process. > >>> > >>> If there are any questions do please let me know. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> David Hilario > >>> RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst > >> > > > > Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on > > board involved in the registration service is totally false. > > I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's > infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I > should have said the "guys from the top floor". > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I > think > >>> this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service > out > >>> there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for > >> example). > >>> > >>> Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at > >>> personal level again. > >> > >> Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. > >> Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments. > >> > >>> Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy > and > >>> not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify > >> this > >>> to the community because this is not the first time personally attack > >>> happening here(and not just to me and my company). > >> > >> I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising > >> questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the > >> value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? > >> > > > > Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the > value > > of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, > > the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the > > internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as > > much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to > the > > current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we > > should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to > discuss > > it here). > > "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". > > When you accuse the 2 russians and other smaller profitors of abuse, > then I can not take it seriously. You're too big compared to them (I > hope you don't take this personally too). And now that you have shed > some light and told us that Elvis, the inititor of this proposal is the > one that approved all that outrageous allocations to you, I can only > hope for some other sane persons to see which problems needs to be solved. > > Ciprian > > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 13:25:46 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:25:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <20150610112546.GU54385@Space.Net> Ciprian, Lu, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: [..] I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has been said (and is publically available in the transfer statistics anyway), while going into personal motives and attacks is uncalled for and not relevant for the proposal. So please take it to private mail. 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Jun 10 13:28:55 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:28:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610112546.GU54385@Space.Net> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> <20150610112546.GU54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert: I am not from a "side" I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self. I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list, ever again. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Ciprian, Lu, > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > [..] > > I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information > the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has > been said (and is publically available in the transfer statistics anyway), > while going into personal motives and attacks is uncalled for and not > relevant for the proposal. > > So please take it to private mail. > > 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 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Wed Jun 10 13:31:05 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:31:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Subject altered to reflect that this is not about 2015-01 anymore On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:02:41PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever >heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without >any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard >to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with >specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just >straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily >- but when judging the overall result, this certainly will >influence the way we look at them. I've long suspected that sock-puppetry is not confined to one side of this and other policy debates. As far as IPv4 is concerned, this will get worse, not better. At the moment the PDP is skewed towards "proposals are good-by-default and the pro argument doesn't need to be articulated"; I do not think this is the correct way. Most proposals have some "rationale against" and a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal". So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point. >No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus >building on a public mailing list. The only issues I can see are - the NCC, as the overseeing body could influence the vote - Proxy voting, perhaps that could be disallowed for policy votes. >(For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled >to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community >to actually vote) That one is in the AoA, afaik; full members in good standing are. The turnout at the last GM vote was roughly 5% but, at 500-ish it is still vastly more than the few people on this mailing list. Perhaps a dual strategy would be in order: consensus on the ML plus a membership vote on policies that affect members' business. (Yes, I'm aware this would be a pretty fundamental change and likely to slow down the PDP some) rgds, Sascha Luck From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 13:34:33 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:34:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150610113433.GW54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:31:05PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > >(For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled > >to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community > >to actually vote) > > That one is in the AoA, afaik; full members in good standing > are. No. This is not the AGM, this is the RIPE community: every member of the RIPE *community* is allowed to influence policy makeing - this is not confined to "LIR members of the NCC". Of course the PDP can be changed. 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 matei at profisol.ro Wed Jun 10 13:38:02 2015 From: matei at profisol.ro (Storch Matei) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:38:02 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, "For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote" - really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, they are the ones telling the RIPE NCC how to act (at least that's my understanding - RIPE NCC works FOR RIPE, RIPE which is made of members of EQUAL rights and obligations). Of course, on the mailing lists ANYONE can intervene, and point out concerns, modifications, etc, and based on what is discussed there, the RIPE members vote. How to get them to vote - that is a totally different question - in Holland as far as I know, voting is COMPULSORY, and you face a penalty if you don't vote - I'm not saying to do something like this, but methods can be found. Also, I can agree there should be a minimum quorum, so that it doesn't happen that only 10 members vote and decide for hundreds of others. A 30% minimum votes I think is feasible. Vote rigging? Really? How do you come to that conclusion? It's not like we are in the US congress and have lobbists who push/bribe/bring illegal voters to get their way ... come on... " What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science." I totally agree it's not an exact science, but the (two) deciders who basically have the final word, should be 100% neutral. As somebody else mentioned, you leave the impression of beeing biased to this exact policy. " I'm not "some people" :-)" - you were not the only one implying that people who never spoke up before don't have the same weight in this decision. I don't want to point fingers, it is nothing personal. Again, please understand that I agree with most of your affirmations. I also fully agree that a policy should be put in place to avoid abuse of the last /8 (the RIPE NCC does not see it as an abuse, I reiterate this, and also does not see this policy as having a real impact), but this policy does not do that. In my opinion, other mechanisms should be enforced - for example, what procentage of the /22s allocated are beeing announced? Just that the LIR was not closed, it does not mean the /22 was not hoarded. Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei at profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 14:03 To: Storch Matei Cc: Gert Doering; Vladimir Andreev; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: > I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: > 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. > 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly). Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them. > I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people. I'm not "some people" :-) > Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with. This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science. > My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example. I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track discussions. Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present his findings. [..] > I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or > not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - > electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to > voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The > infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet > related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h > period to vote... No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list. (For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote) 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 From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 13:39:51 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:51 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <55782207.5060202@ip-broker.uk> Hi, Gert, sorry but I don't want to leave things unclear so I'll send this one last reply to Lu. Please don't take into consideration any discussions related to this issue when analyzing the 2015-01 approval. It is off-topic but I think it shows a problem that needs to be understood and maybe addressed. > "Previous abuse", where is your support for such accusation? In my opinion based on the facts that I already mention this can be called an abuse much more than what the 2 russians have done. > OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be > relevant anyway. No, as anyone can read OutsideHeaven is YOUR trade name. Maybe today you have a corporation but on that time it was you (the person) trading as some brand. > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making > accusation without any support evidence. > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved > this last-second allocation. " > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision > about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. > Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common > knowledge. It was just a supporting argument. Of course the main ones were that it was a very large ISP with huge growth, millions of customers, thousands of employees. > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I > have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests). Ciprian From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 13:41:55 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:41:55 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150610114155.GX54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:38:02PM +0300, Storch Matei wrote: > "For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and > how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote" - > really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, RIPE NCC Members vote on RIPE NCC business issues. RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is "individual having an interest" not "corporations being part of a commercial structure". The RIPE NCC acts as a secretariat, implementing the policy made by the RIPE community. There is an important distinction here. 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 frettled at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 13:43:30 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > Most proposals have some "rationale against" and > a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the > rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal". But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with? For a "+1", that's very easy: it's the proposal that was linked to. For a "-1", they at the very least could point out what it is they think is wrong, and how. Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none. The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and so on. In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not only better wording and in some cases significantly changed proposal texts, but also in the complete workover or even withdrawal of the proposal in question. So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point. > This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip-broker.uk Wed Jun 10 13:43:40 2015 From: office at ip-broker.uk (Ciprian Nica) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:43:40 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> <20150610112546.GU54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <557822EC.5030008@ip-broker.uk> Hi, > I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my > company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self. > > I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal > information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list, > ever again. I didn't mention your name, it was an example. Like you there are others. I just showed the IPs which, after you sold them, are registered to someone else so it would not have been that obvious that you are behind them until you came up and took it presonally. My intent was to point the finger at the situation and not at you. Like we are analyzing the situation with the last /22s and not Mr. Bulgakov or Quicksoft. Ciprian From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 10 13:45:13 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:45:13 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <20150610114155.GX54385@Space.Net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610114155.GX54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: > RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE > NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is > "individual having an interest" not "corporations being part of a > commercial structure". the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community, whether LIR, enterprise, or 15 year old with a modem (he has probably upgraded since i last used him as an example). the internet is for everyone, and policy decisions should be open to input from everyone. of course, this does not include sock puppets. randy From andrea at ripe.net Wed Jun 10 13:49:42 2015 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:49:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55782456.8060804@ripe.net> Dear All, On 10/6/15 10:50, Lu Heng wrote: > And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in > any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very > much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for > your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, > please help to clarify). Please let me try to clarify this. This is the process that was followed in the period between October 2007 and September 2012: Requests for PA allocations equal to or larger than a /15 would go through an escalation process. In this case, the documentation would be reviewed and evaluated by a second IP Resource Analyst (IPRA). Once both IPRAs were satisfied with the documentation provided, their findings were reviewed by the Registration Services (RS) Manager (to confirm that the evaluation was carried out according to Registration Services procedures) and the Policy Development Officer (to confirm that the request was in compliance with RIPE policies). Once the RS Manager and the Policy Development Officer were satisfied with the documentation provided, the request would be escalated to two Senior Managers, who would check that all processes were followed correctly. I hope this clarifies. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC From apwg at c4inet.net Wed Jun 10 13:54:44 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:54:44 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150610115444.GD35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >> Most proposals have some "rationale against" and >> a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the >> rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal". >But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with? Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? Sometimes there is more than one. >Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond >any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight >should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none. > >The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support >for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with >ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and >so on. Most of the time, even Phase 1 consists of "+1" >In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not >only better wording and in some cases significantly changed >proposal texts, but also in the complete workover or even >withdrawal of the proposal in question. Requiring both sides to argue their point does not change that. >This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, >and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process. You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere I wish to go back to. rgds, Sascha Luck From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 10 13:56:54 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:56:54 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> On 10 Jun 2015, at 12:38, Storch Matei wrote: > "For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and > how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote" - > really? RIPE has no concept of membership and therefore cannot vote. It works by consensus. In fact voting is utterly impractical since it is impossible to determine who could or couldn't vote or how often they could do that. > RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, they are > the ones telling the RIPE NCC how to act (at least that's my understanding - > RIPE NCC works FOR RIPE, RIPE which is made of members of EQUAL rights and > obligations). You seem confused. RIPE NCC is a Dutch non-profit organisation funded by members who pay annual fees. In return for those fees, they get various services from the RIPE NCC. Members also elect the board and vote on its activity plan and charging scheme at the AGM. RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things are deliberate. RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can use the RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure, pass resolutions, etc, etc. From apwg at c4inet.net Wed Jun 10 14:17:37 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:17:37 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:56:54PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: >RIPE NCC is a Dutch non-profit organisation funded by members >who pay annual fees. In return for those fees, they get various >services from the RIPE NCC. Members also elect the board and >vote on its activity plan and charging scheme at the AGM. > >RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are >interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly >in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal >identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not >have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have >members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things >are deliberate. What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with the RIPE NCC. >RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If >the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the >best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can use the >RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board >members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure, >pass resolutions, etc, etc. What would the point be of replacing a Board (which has so far done a good job) with one that is just as bound by RIPE policy as the last one? The only real options open to a membership unhappy with RIPE policy are to elect a Board that promises not to be bound by RIPE policy or to de-fund the NCC. I don't think either option appeals much. rgds, Sascha Luck From ripe at opteamax.de Wed Jun 10 14:30:54 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:30:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: <20150610115444.GD35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20150610115444.GD35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <55782DFE.60406@opteamax.de> Sascha, On 10.06.2015 13:54, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? > Sometimes there is more than one. > The end-result which is the outcome of the proposal > You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one > side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any > argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and > reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere > I wish to go back to. The proposal itself, before being presented to the mailinglist already has a history. One/Some people already spent quiet some time thinking about something which currently is not working and finding a way to make things better. They write down a documentation how they want to enhance the current policy. So saying "I understand what your arguments for a change are and feel that it is a good idea to adjust the policy as you described" (or shorthand: +1) imho *is* different then simply saying "what you write is bullshit". Actually each argumentation is starting with one side presenting their working hypothesis with a description on why and how they come to it and looking for supporters. It's the other side who needs to *explain* what is not ok with that hypothesis and why they speak *against* it, at that point. Because the reasoning *for* that hypothesis already exists. BR Jens -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From frettled at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 14:35:14 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:35:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] PDP issues In-Reply-To: <55782DFE.60406@opteamax.de> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <20150610113105.GC35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <20150610115444.GD35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <55782DFE.60406@opteamax.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > Sascha, > > On 10.06.2015 13:54, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > > Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? > > Sometimes there is more than one. > > > > The end-result which is the outcome of the proposal > > > You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one > > side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any > > argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and > > reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere > > I wish to go back to. > > The proposal itself, before being presented to the mailinglist already > has a history. One/Some people already spent quiet some time thinking > about something which currently is not working and finding a way to make > things better. They write down a documentation how they want to enhance > the current policy. So saying "I understand what your arguments for a > change are and feel that it is a good idea to adjust the policy as you > described" (or shorthand: +1) imho *is* different then simply saying > "what you write is bullshit". > > Actually each argumentation is starting with one side presenting their > working hypothesis with a description on why and how they come to it and > looking for supporters. It's the other side who needs to *explain* what > is not ok with that hypothesis and why they speak *against* it, at that > point. Because the reasoning *for* that hypothesis already exists. And, case in point: +1 -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 14:43:23 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:43:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > > What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by > the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this > means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may > not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with > the RIPE NCC. You may then be surprised to know how few people were involved in "deciding" what the Internet turned out to be, for each single point in time where an RFC became a standard. That's how it works, and currently, noone has proposed a better way of doing it. However, you can of course come up with a proposal, based on your own criticism of how these processes are. I don't quite see how that is on topic for the address policy working group, though, as it's not an address policy, but a meta policy which has ramifications far beyond this working group. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 14:53:54 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:53:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150610125354.GA54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:43:23PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > However, you can of course come up with a proposal, based on your own > criticism of how these processes are. I don't quite see how that is on > topic for the address policy working group, though, as it's not an address > policy, but a meta policy which has ramifications far beyond this working > group. Right, a change to the PDP would have go through consensus on the ripe-list as it affects the whole community and all the WGs (though AP is certainly the WG that excercises the PDP most). ... and the RIPE chair would have to judge consensus on this. 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 ripe at ntx.ru Wed Jun 10 14:56:15 2015 From: ripe at ntx.ru (ripe at ntx.ru) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:56:15 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: Greetings! "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not important and not against other members or people.? In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help people and companies. ?So you will get opposite result.? I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not against it! I am not offen here, but I keep helping people to understand ripe rulls. We just ?finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours later we have today database update and can show fresh information. Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. Yuri at NTX ?????????? ? ?????????? Samsung -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 10 14:59:26 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:59:26 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <6EC3910C-1DB2-4A7F-83CA-CF86E58B18A9@rfc1035.com> On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:17, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with the RIPE NCC. That is possible in principle - true. However if that ever happens, it means the other 11,990 NCC members were either indifferent to the policy proposal or felt it didn't have enough impact to take ANY action while the proposal was passing through the PDP. This is the equivalent of someone complaining about who got to be in government when they didn't bother to go out and vote. Anyone who didn't like a proposal that these hypothetical <10 sockpuppets managed to get adopted is able to propose an alternative or amend an existing policy. That's how it works. RIPE's policy-making machinery is open to all. Whether people use it or not is up to them. The PDP includes an impact assessment, so if a proposal was going to cost the NCC too much money or other resources, these issues can be dealt with before the proposal is finally adopted. >> RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If >> the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the >> best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can use the >> RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board >> members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure, >> pass resolutions, etc, etc. > > What would the point be of replacing a Board (which has so far > done a good job) with one that is just as bound by RIPE policy as > the last one? You focus on detail. This was just one of the ways I suggested how the NCC membership could take action if/when they thought RIPE policy was not in the best interests of the NCC or its membership. If a board member was ever elected on a "stop proposal foo" ticket, that would probably be strong enough grounds to defer implementation of that proposal until the conflict was resolved. > The only real options open to a membership unhappy with RIPE > policy are to elect a Board that promises not to be bound by RIPE > policy or to de-fund the NCC. I don't think either option appeals > much. Indeed. But those mechanisms are there. These are over and above the checks and balances offered by the PDP. I agree we would be in a very bad place if the RIPE NCC membership and RIPE community held mutually exclusive views. However there is a considerable overlap between the two. From randy at psg.com Wed Jun 10 15:03:46 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:03:46 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: > What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are > bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this > means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may > not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with > the RIPE NCC. what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy affecting millions internet users. randy From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Jun 10 15:05:59 2015 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <55783637.3060300@schiefner.de> Sascha - On 10.06.2015 14:17, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: >> RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are >> interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly >> in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal >> identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not >> have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have >> members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things >> are deliberate. > > What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by > the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this > means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may > not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with > the RIPE NCC. this is correct. As all and any of these ~12k RIPE NCC members - or rather their representatives as Local/Regional Internet Citizens - can influence the PDP process. If they do not wish to do so - that is also fine. But this would make any comment moot that the NCC members are not or cannot be heard. Best, -C. From sebastian at karotte.org Wed Jun 10 15:12:25 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:12:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150610131225.GA1668@danton.fire-world.de> * ripe at ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]: > Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. > "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will > not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies > rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not > important and not against other members or people.? The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. > In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult > some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help > people and companies. ?So you will get opposite result.? In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. > I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive > doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we > need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not > against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? > We just ?finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours > later we have today database update and can show fresh information. > Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. > > We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ripe at ntx.ru Wed Jun 10 15:38:44 2015 From: ripe at ntx.ru (ripe at ntx.ru) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:38:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! You are against ripe members? ?Not speakeing anout 185.x right now. Its globaly. Why to make it harder? The policy you try to applay will not help you goal. You should assist and try to help people to get ips that they need for business if ripe have them with some faer puporse. Current ip ranges are very small and may not care on big owners who use lot of ip networs like /16 /15 and etc. Ripe should take more care on database and better take back ips that were get from ripe somehow with strange puporses. I dont see any good idea here. It will even not help one companies to help other companies to arrange needed ip amount. If you think you should resist ip redistrebution and interfere geting ips legaly from ripe may be better lets stop IP distribution at all and close ripe? Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. ?Ever if you read the propousal puporse you will undersnand that it will not help, even if it happen nothing strange will happen. But the result that will be published later will confirm that you where wrong. Please give some days for discussion if that possible. Yuri at NTX ?????????? ? ?????????? Samsung -------- ???????? ????????? -------- ??: Sebastian Wiesinger ????: 10.06.2015 16:12 (GMT+02:00) ????: address-policy-wg at ripe.net ????: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published * ripe at ntx.ru [2015-06-10 15:00]: > Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. > "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will > not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies > rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not > important and not against other members or people.? The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. > In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult > some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help > people and companies. ?So you will get opposite result.? In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. > I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive > doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we > need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not > against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? > We just ?finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours > later we have today database update and can show fresh information. > Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. > > We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A? 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. ??????????? -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Wed Jun 10 16:03:03 2015 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <55784397.1050704@inex.ie> On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: > what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few > thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy > affecting millions internet users. ~980m. Nick From elvis at velea.eu Wed Jun 10 16:16:19 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) In-Reply-To: <55782207.5060202@ip-broker.uk> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> <55782207.5060202@ip-broker.uk> Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu> Hi Ciprian, > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Hi, [...] >> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making >> accusation without any support evidence. >> >> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved >> this last-second allocation. " >> >> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision >> about our allocation. > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I > only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene > but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...] >> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I >> have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the > requests). Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said: > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. only to then say: > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > Ciprian > /elvis From silvia.hagen at sunny.ch Wed Jun 10 16:46:31 2015 From: silvia.hagen at sunny.ch (Silvia Hagen) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) In-Reply-To: <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu> References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> <55782207.5060202@ip-broker.uk> <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu> Message-ID: This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian, > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Hi, [...] >> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >> making accusation without any support evidence. >> >> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >> approved this last-second allocation. " >> >> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >> decision about our allocation. > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...] >> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > the requests). Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said: > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. only to then say: > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > Ciprian > /elvis From marty at akamai.com Wed Jun 10 16:56:16 2015 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) In-Reply-To: References: <55780C71.1000108@ip-broker.uk> <55781C30.9030404@ip-broker.uk> <55782207.5060202@ip-broker.uk> <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu> Message-ID: It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes. Best, -M< > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen wrote: > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > Silvia > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > Hi Ciprian, > >> so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> Hi, > [...] >>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>> >>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>> >>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>> decision about our allocation. >> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >> scene but that should also bring some questions. > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] >>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >> the requests). > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > >> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > >> Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. >> Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >> >> Ciprian >> > /elvis > From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 17:15:16 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:15:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150610151516.GE54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 04:38:44PM +0300, ripe at ntx.ru wrote: > Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! We are not. This proposal will not change the amount of addresses a new LIR can get or the actions required to get there in any way. What it does is making it harder to sell them away right afterwards, but this is quite a difference. [..] > Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. ? Totally correct, and this is not changed. 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 frettled at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 17:58:56 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:58:56 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, ripe at ntx.ru wrote: > Greetings again, > > Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot > of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as > myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. > > I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of > people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for > their opinion too. > ... > > > Please give some days for discussion if that possible. > > You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/000444.html Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladimir at quick-soft.net Wed Jun 10 18:04:27 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:04:27 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <934661433952267@web3g.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Wed Jun 10 18:16:15 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:16:15 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <934661433952267@web3g.yandex.ru> References: <934661433952267@web3g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150610161615.GK54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:04:27PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >
Hi!
?
According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase.
? Yes, this is true, and we do that if the chairs come to the conclusion that there is not enough support for the proposal as it stands. Since we (*) have not yet come to a conclusion, it is too early to say whether the proposal will proceed to Last Call or enter another round of Review phase. (*): in this case, Sander will do it, and I will abstain, to make sure neutrality is given - I *did* read the comments that I got involved too much, and thus avoid potential arguments around that. 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 ripe at ntx.ru Wed Jun 10 18:34:29 2015 From: ripe at ntx.ru (ripe at ntx.ru) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:34:29 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: I got information from some persons from this emailing list that 185 will end up in 3 month and links to ripe stats. Its not correct.? I show the lir reg stats and blocks allocations. Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 2013 1844 1888256 12% 83% 14091264 2014 2472 2537472 16% 67% 11553792 2015 1154 1202176 8% 59% 10351616 Total: 6249 6425600 39% 61% 10351616 Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012-9 195 199680 1.19% 98.81% 16577536 2012-10 212 217088 1.29% 97.52% 16360448 2012-11 208 212992 1.27% 96.25% 16147456 2012-12 164 167936 1% 95.25% 15979520 2013-1 196 200704 1.2% 94.05% 15778816 2013-2 145 148480 0.89% 93.16% 15630336 2013-3 154 157696 0.94% 92.22% 15472640 2013-4 167 171008 1.02% 91.2% 15301632 2013-5 144 147456 0.88% 90.32% 15154176 2013-6 136 139264 0.83% 89.49% 15014912 2013-7 156 159744 0.95% 88.54% 14855168 2013-8 136 139264 0.83% 87.71% 14715904 2013-9 129 132096 0.79% 86.92% 14583808 2013-10 188 192512 1.15% 85.77% 14391296 2013-11 144 147456 0.88% 84.89% 14243840 2013-12 149 152576 0.91% 83.98% 14091264 2014-1 145 148480 0.89% 83.09% 13942784 2014-2 170 174080 1.04% 82.05% 13768704 2014-3 192 196608 1.17% 80.88% 13572096 2014-4 240 245760 1.46% 79.42% 13326336 2014-5 205 209920 1.25% 78.17% 13116416 2014-6 188 193536 1.15% 77.02% 12922880 2014-7 209 214016 1.28% 75.74% 12708864 2014-8 186 190464 1.14% 74.6% 12518400 2014-9 190 195584 1.17% 73.43% 12322816 2014-10 249 254976 1.52% 71.91% 12067840 2014-11 238 243712 1.45% 70.46% 11824128 2014-12 260 270336 1.61% 68.85% 11553792 2015-1 228 235520 1.4% 67.45% 11318272 2015-2 237 242688 1.45% 66% 11075584 2015-3 302 316416 1.89% 64.11% 10759168 2015-4 290 299008 1.78% 62.33% 10460160 2015-5 97 108544 0.65% 61.68% 10351616 Please take a view. You can see that in 2015 approx the same amount of ips will be allocated to new lirs. And ips is enought for some years! Anycase free ips at ripe are growing. So ripe should make the ip usage price (lir fees less) or give more IPs (lets say 2048) to one lir and help people work but not make market from ips. Yuri at NTX ?????????? ? ?????????? Samsung -------- ???????? ????????? -------- ??: Vladimir Andreev ????: 10.06.2015 19:04 (GMT+02:00) ????: RIPE Address Policy WG ????: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi!?According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase.?10.06.2015, 18:59, "Jan Ingvoldstad" :On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, ripe at ntx.ru wrote: Greetings again,?Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people.?I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too.?...? Please give some days for discussion if that possible. ?You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced:?https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/000444.html?Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry.-- Jan??--?With best regards, Vladimir AndreevGeneral director, QuickSoft LLCTel: +7 903 1750503? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Wed Jun 10 18:56:22 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:56:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published In-Reply-To: <934661433952267@web3g.yandex.ru> References: <934661433952267@web3g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Hi! > > According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to > "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. > That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From callumstuart79 at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 05:43:37 2015 From: callumstuart79 at gmail.com (Callum Stuart) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:43:37 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his ?own account? ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ? Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for the speculation. Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto: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 (mailto:address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net (mailto: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: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) > 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Elvis Daniel Velea) > 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Silvia Hagen) > 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Hannigan, Martin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 > From: Nick Hilliard > To: Randy Bush , Sascha Luck > Cc: RIPE address policy WG > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC > Message-ID: <55784397.1050704 at inex.ie (mailto:55784397.1050704 at inex.ie)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: > > what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few > > thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy > > affecting millions internet users. > > > > > ~980m. > > Nick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea > To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net) > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009 at velea.eu (mailto:557846B3.1010009 at velea.eu)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked > you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday > telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to > make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks > against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making > > > accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved > > > this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision > > > about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I > > only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene > > but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong > assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression > that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all > the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because > their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have > if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false > assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was > unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members > may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE > NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and > I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation > received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation > (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have > received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, > you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the > tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including > the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can > not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you > would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict > others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs > have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were > at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you > decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice > any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me > (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs > from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I > > > have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the > > requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that > found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as > with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you > by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is > helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict > of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one > single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you > started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the > allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know > (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no > single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second > IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise > you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have > wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly > or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity > at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind > of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen > To: "elvis at velea.eu (mailto:elvis at velea.eu)" , "address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net)" > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > Silvia > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net) > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > the requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 > From: "Hannigan, Martin" > To: Silvia Hagen > Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net)" > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen wrote: > > > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > > > Silvia > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net) > > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > > > Hi Ciprian, > > > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > [...] > > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > > > [...] > > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > > the requests). > > > > > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > > > and before that you said: > > > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > > > only to then say: > > > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > > > > > > > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > > > Ciprian > > /elvis > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 > ************************************************* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: resource of Secure data sys.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: resource of Visnetwork.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124335 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Secure Data Systems SRL.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 368083 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Visnetwork Media SRL.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 389737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Elvis Linkedin Profile.png Type: image/png Size: 411642 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gabimateiciuc .png Type: image/png Size: 357104 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amir at mohsenian.eu Tue Jun 9 10:34:04 2015 From: amir at mohsenian.eu (Amir Mohsen) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:04:04 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] (no subject) Message-ID: <00b701d0a28f$132c5580$39850080$@mohsenian.eu> -1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amir at mohsenian.eu Tue Jun 9 10:41:06 2015 From: amir at mohsenian.eu (Amir Mohsen) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:11:06 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01) Message-ID: <00cd01d0a290$0d9a7100$28cf5300$@mohsenian.eu> -1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amir at mohsenian.eu Tue Jun 9 17:04:01 2015 From: amir at mohsenian.eu (Amir Mohsen) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:34:01 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published be mailing list Message-ID: <007701d0a2c5$859780a0$90c681e0$@mohsenian.eu> Hi, I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve the problem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan at pro-net.co.uk Wed Jun 10 17:25:40 2015 From: dan at pro-net.co.uk (Danial Subhani) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:25:40 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <201506101525.t5AFPcXR093287@satriani.as6911.net> I would 2nd that! When I have nothing better to do, I sit here reading this book :-) Regards to you all :-) Danial Subhani PRO-NET INTERNET SERVICES LTD Tel: 0870 835 6911 Fax: 0870 835 6912 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. It is strictly prohibited to disseminate, distribute or copy this communication if you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message. If you have received this communication in error, please accept our apology. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Silvia Hagen Sent: 10 June 2015 15:47 To: elvis at velea.eu; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian, > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Hi, [...] >> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >> making accusation without any support evidence. >> >> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >> approved this last-second allocation. " >> >> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >> decision about our allocation. > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...] >> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > the requests). Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said: > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. only to then say: > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > Ciprian > /elvis ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4311/9985 - Release Date: 06/09/15 From dan at pro-net.co.uk Thu Jun 11 03:28:03 2015 From: dan at pro-net.co.uk (dan) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:28:03 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: Only people who would object are those who wana exploit the system! If i did this in 1995 > i would be loaded!? I still have my 'rose tinted glasses on'? Feeling old!? RIPE.. this needs to stop! Danial Subhani Pro-Net Internet Services Ltd
-------- Original message --------
From: Jan Ingvoldstad
Date:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00)
To: RIPE Address Policy WG
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elvis at velea.eu Thu Jun 11 10:24:27 2015 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Daniel Velea) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:24:27 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557945BB.2080308@velea.eu> Dear Ciprian, These is are false accusations and I please ask you to stop attacking me personally. As I said, if you or someone else have questions about my activity at RIPE NCC, you should contact me personally or the RIPE NCC directly. I understand that my policy proposal can upset you and other people. My intention is not to propose a policy that will affect your business but to propose something that will benefit the entire community. I also understand that we are competitors in the IP Broker space but in this mailing list I am simply talking as a member of the RIPE community. I believe that defaming competition is not a good practice and this is definitely not the place. Again, I apologize if my policy proposal upsets you and other people and I can assure you that my intention is to propose something that will benefit all of us (the RIPE Community) in the long term. Thank you, Elvis PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it? On 11/06/15 06:43, Callum Stuart wrote: > Hello, > > > One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large > group of people in ripe region. > > can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared > with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the > investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, > the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. > > > > /Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has > conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 > blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. / > > /Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from > RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his > ?own account? ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and > the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem > here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to > become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How > can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ?/ > > / > / > > > /Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows > better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others > ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for > the speculation. / > > / > / > > /Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by > committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. / > > / > / > > /Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. / > > / > / > > / > / > > /See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, > linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. / > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, > 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: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) >> 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Elvis Daniel Velea) >> 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Silvia Hagen) >> 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Hannigan, Martin) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 >> From: Nick Hilliard > >> To: Randy Bush >, Sascha Luck >> > >> Cc: RIPE address policy WG > > >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC >> Message-ID: <55784397.1050704 at inex.ie > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: >>> what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few >>> thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy >>> affecting millions internet users. >> >> ~980m. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 >> From: Elvis Daniel Velea > >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009 at velea.eu >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >> >> Hi Ciprian, >> >> > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >> >> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked >> you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >> >> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to >> make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. >> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks >> against me... >> >> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>> Hi, >> [...] >>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>> making >>>> accusation without any support evidence. >>>> >>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>> approved >>>> this last-second allocation. " >>>> >>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>> decision >>>> about our allocation. >>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I >>> only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene >>> but that should also bring some questions. >> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression >> that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all >> the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because >> their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have >> if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false >> assumptions. >> >> >> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members >> may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE >> NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and >> I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation >> received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation >> (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have >> received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. >> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, >> you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the >> tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including >> the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can >> not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you >> would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict >> others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs >> have been with Lu. >> >> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were >> at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you >> decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice >> any opinion. >> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs >> from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >> >> [...] >>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>> reality, I >>>> have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the >>> requests). >> >> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that >> found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as >> with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. >> >> and before that you said: >> >> > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you >> by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >> >> only to then say: >> >> > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >> helping you sell the IPs. >> > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >> of interests here. >> >> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one >> single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you >> started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the >> allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know >> (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no >> single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second >> IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. >> >> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise >> you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have >> wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly >> or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity >> at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind >> of conspiracy theories where there is none. >> >> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>> >>> Ciprian >> /elvis >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 >> From: Silvia Hagen > >> To: "elvis at velea.eu " > >, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> " >> > >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment >> >> Silvia >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im >> Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 >> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i >> ask for the 3rd time) >> >> Hi Ciprian, >> >> > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >> >> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already >> asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >> >> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued >> to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have >> said. >> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start >> attacks against me... >> >> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>> Hi, >> [...] >>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>>> >>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>>> >>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>> decision about our allocation. >>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >>> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >>> scene but that should also bring some questions. >> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression >> that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than >> all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal >> because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business >> you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your >> own false assumptions. >> >> >> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members >> may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the >> RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my >> job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the >> documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 >> IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs >> may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. >> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a >> /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used >> all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong >> - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your >> request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have >> received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we >> have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea >> how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. >> >> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you >> were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, >> you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did >> not voice any opinion. >> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more >> IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >> >> [...] >>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >>> the requests). >> >> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that >> found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just >> as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at >> the NCC. >> >> and before that you said: >> >> > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to >> you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >> >> only to then say: >> >> > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >> helping you sell the IPs. >> > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >> of interests here. >> >> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one >> single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you >> started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the >> allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you >> know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) >> that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without >> a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. >> >> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would >> advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you >> have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me >> directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about >> my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of >> interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. >> >> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>> >>> Ciprian >> /elvis >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 >> From: "Hannigan, Martin" > >> To: Silvia Hagen > >> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net " >> > >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> >> >> It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare >> operations to their personal mailboxes. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen >> > wrote: >>> >>> This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment >>> >>> Silvia >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] >>> Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 >>> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >>> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i >>> ask for the 3rd time) >>> >>> Hi Ciprian, >>> >>>> so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >>> >>> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already >>> asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >>> >>> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >>> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have >>> continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what >>> others have said. >>> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start >>> attacks against me... >>> >>> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>>> Hi, >>> [...] >>>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>>>> >>>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>>>> >>>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>>> decision about our allocation. >>>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >>>> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >>>> scene but that should also bring some questions. >>> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >>> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the >>> impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not >>> better than all the others that have been attacking me over this >>> policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what >>> kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and >>> companies relying on your own false assumptions. >>> >>> >>> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >>> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC >>> Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working >>> at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very >>> good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth >>> all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received >>> the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) >>> some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these >>> were justified. >>> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a >>> /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used >>> all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong >>> - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your >>> request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have >>> received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we >>> have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea >>> how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. >>> >>> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you >>> were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, >>> you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did >>> not voice any opinion. >>> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >>> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more >>> IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >>> >>> [...] >>>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >>>> the requests). >>> >>> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said >>> that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, >>> just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent >>> at the NCC. >>> >>> and before that you said: >>> >>>> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to >>>> you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >>> >>> only to then say: >>> >>>> Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >>>> helping you sell the IPs. >>>> Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >>>> of interests here. >>> >>> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that >>> one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. >>> However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu >>> receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. >>> Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had >>> forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger >>> allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and >>> senior management approval. >>> >>> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would >>> advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you >>> have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me >>> directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about >>> my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of >>> interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. >>> >>> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >>> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>>> >>>> Ciprian >>> /elvis >> >> >> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 >> ************************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 124222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 124335 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 368083 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 389737 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 411642 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 357104 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Thu Jun 11 10:31:05 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:31:05 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150611083105.GT54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:37AM +0800, Callum Stuart wrote: > One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. If this was circulated *privately*, leaking it to the public is a gross violation of nettiquette. [..] > Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Stop these personal attacks RIGHT NOW. There is no evidence to back this, so don't go around attacking members of the community in good standing in public. You might not *like* the brokerage business (which is a perfectly viable personal opinion - I think it's important to ensure that buyers and sellers can have a mutual point of trust, who ensures the transaction is done without either side cheating) - but that does not imply that the personal integrity of Elvis is under any sort of doubt here. If you think something criminal has been done, and can prove it, involve NCC management. But this DOES NOT belong on the AP list. (And it's a very cheap shot to try to stop the proposal by attacking the proposer - it won't achieve that, as the proposer is no longer involved at this point anyway. It's a matter of the chairs and PDO now.) 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 gert at space.net Thu Jun 11 10:33:34 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:33:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests In-Reply-To: <557945BB.2080308@velea.eu> References: <557945BB.2080308@velea.eu> Message-ID: <20150611083334.GU54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > to stop. Can you also do something about it? As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. 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 millnert at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 11:10:33 2015 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:10:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 16:31 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer > > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. > > Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough. Also support current proposal. > I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents > abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not "illegitimate" and "abuse". As always, I believe address pricing will be most straight-forward way to manage this for remaining RIPE region v4 pools. /M From apwg at c4inet.net Thu Jun 11 11:29:15 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:29:15 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <6EC3910C-1DB2-4A7F-83CA-CF86E58B18A9@rfc1035.com> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <6EC3910C-1DB2-4A7F-83CA-CF86E58B18A9@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <20150611092914.GF35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:59:26PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: >However if that ever happens, it means the other 11,990 NCC >members were either indifferent to the policy proposal or felt >it didn't have enough impact to take ANY action while the >proposal was passing through the PDP. This is the equivalent of >someone complaining about who got to be in government when they >didn't bother to go out and vote. Alas, this is only too true and I don't know why this is so. I might propose an NCC activity to raise awareness of the PDP among the membership as a first step - if I can figure out how to go about that. Another thing that may help is to move away from mailing lists as the sole tool - email is something that only old farts like myself are really comfortable with, not to mention very open to abuse as we've seen. There are more modern collaboration tools available, something like Etherpad maybe... rgds, Sascha Luck From vladimir at quick-soft.net Thu Jun 11 11:36:48 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:36:48 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> Hi! One interesting things. The following text is taken from here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01: "The goal of this policy change is to close the loophole which allows companies to setup LIRs and immediately transfer the /22(s) received from the RIPE NCC, thus making a financial profit by using the existing IPv4 marketplace." As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? P.S. I know that all said here and now have no impact since Review is ended. 11.06.2015, 12:18, "Martin Millnert" : > ?On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 16:31 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >> ??On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> ??> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >> ??> Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >> >> ??Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough. > > ?Also support current proposal. > >> ??I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >> ??abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. > > ?Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG > ?cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via > ?"illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not > ?"illegitimate" and "abuse". > > ?As always, I believe address pricing will be most straight-forward way > ?to manage this for remaining RIPE region v4 pools. > > ?/M --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From sebastian at karotte.org Thu Jun 11 11:44:01 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:44:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks (was: address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35) Conflict of Interests In-Reply-To: <20150611083334.GU54385@Space.Net> References: <557945BB.2080308@velea.eu> <20150611083334.GU54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150611094401.GA10439@danton.fire-world.de> * Gert Doering [2015-06-11 10:36]: > > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > > to stop. Can you also do something about it? > > As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. > > I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency > and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a > stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs > use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not > stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. I find these attacks appaling. I feel sorry for Elvis who did us a favor by drafting this proposal and who only got flak from people wo didn't care about APWG as long as it didn't interfer with them making money by abusing the system. FWIW, consider blocking/moderating the individual persons before moderating the list. At the moment it might be managable that way. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 11:47:58 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:47:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. Message-ID: Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: *"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the* *last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is anotherexample of this). There is not really anything we in address policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"* He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: *"Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but thatis the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version " output.While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeedmake the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."* While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: *"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.* *Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:* *1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.* *2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.* *Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.* *Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.* *And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."* >From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > > to stop. Can you also do something about it? > > As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. > > I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency > and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a > stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs > use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not > stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. > > 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 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Jun 11 12:27:09 2015 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:27:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that?s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey?.) c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple?s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...) The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let?s please try to be constructive. Tim > On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: > > This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. > > First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. > > secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. > > While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: > > "One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the > last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is another > example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy > can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something > that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be > received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud > happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)" > > He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. > > While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: > > "Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put > on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that > is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, > MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "37.222.0.0" claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version " output. > > While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal > under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or > has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed > make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal." > > While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: > > "Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well. > > Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: > > 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. > > 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy. > > Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list. > > Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour. > > And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe." > > From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. > > I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. > > "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. > > Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. > > I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. > > End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. > > Be professional. > > With regards. > > Lu > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering > wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > > to stop. Can you also do something about it? > > As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. > > I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency > and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a > stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs > use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not > stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. > > 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 > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip4market.ru Thu Jun 11 12:42:08 2015 From: office at ip4market.ru (Staff) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:42:08 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55796600.8060702@ip4market.ru> Good day everyone! We don't see it's a good idea to somehow limit transfers. So we don't see this proposal will help, it will not "close the loophole". RIPE should help and assist to make transfers more easy. So people can easily redistribute IPs that they don't really need. Number of transfers of 185.x networks is not large. And while this ability exists many companies can start own business with IPv4 space normally. Again, this one proposal will not help and it will make boomerang effect. Olga, Hostmaster On 11.06.2015 12:36, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Hi! > > One interesting things. > > The following text is taken from here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01: > > "The goal of this policy change is to close the loophole which allows companies to setup LIRs and immediately transfer the /22(s) received from the RIPE NCC, thus making a financial profit by using the existing IPv4 marketplace." > > As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. > > In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? > > P.S. I know that all said here and now have no impact since Review is ended. > > 11.06.2015, 12:18, "Martin Millnert" : >> On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 16:31 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote: >>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >>> > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >>> >>> Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough. >> Also support current proposal. >> >>> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >>> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. >> Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG >> cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via >> "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not >> "illegitimate" and "abuse". >> >> As always, I believe address pricing will be most straight-forward way >> to manage this for remaining RIPE region v4 pools. >> >> /M > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 > From ripe at opteamax.de Thu Jun 11 12:52:49 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:52:49 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Lu, and all others, you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand and in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling better now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could have as purpose. All on the list, please stop all those flaming I had to read in the last couple of days. If you know about illegal activities, go to the appropriate authorities. Or maybe first follow the rules defined here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613 And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others. Thanks! Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job! BR Jens Am 11. Juni 2015 11:47:58 MESZ, schrieb Lu Heng : >Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: > >This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. > >[...] Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From jkennedy at libertyglobal.com Thu Jun 11 12:56:25 2015 From: jkennedy at libertyglobal.com (Kennedy, James) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:56:25 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13E63C78A6256E4A857726374FBF926E127B2B0A@NLAMSPEXMB022.upcit.ds.upc.biz> Good points, agreed. It?s normal for some community members feel aggrieved by suspected serious foul play, be it legit or not. Inevitable really, considering what has become the (rather ugly) IPv4 gold rush. However to echo Gert, APWG is not the place for raising claims. Better take these directly to the RIPE NCC. Regards, James IP Address Manager T + 31 20 778 9270 M + 31 (0) 652 858 699 jkennedy at libertyglobal.com From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tim Chown Sent: 11 June 2015 12:27 To: Lu Heng Cc: Gert Doering; chair at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG. Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that?s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey?.) c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple?s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...) The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let?s please try to be constructive. Tim On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng > wrote: Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: "One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is another example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)" He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: "Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "37.222.0.0" claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version " output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal." While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: "Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well. Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy. Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list. Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour. And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe." From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering > wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > to stop. Can you also do something about it? As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. 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 -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 12:58:48 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:58:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.* It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > Hi Lu, and all others, > > you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand > and in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling > better now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could > have as purpose. > > All on the list, please stop all those flaming I had to read in the last > couple of days. If you know about illegal activities, go to the appropriate > authorities. Or maybe first follow the rules defined here: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613 > > And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others. > Thanks! > > Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I > think you and Sander are doing a good job! > > BR Jens > > Am 11. Juni 2015 11:47:58 MESZ, schrieb Lu Heng : > >Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: > > > >This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. > > > >[...] > > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frettled at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 13:30:58 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:30:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial > questions. > > In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? > Your conflating two different areas into one. You're also confusing "current" and "proposed". Additionally, you're attacking parts of sentences completely out of context. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladimir at quick-soft.net Thu Jun 11 13:32:47 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:47 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <1666921434015408@web2g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <3659711434022367@web17j.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sebastian at karotte.org Thu Jun 11 13:48:21 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:48:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> * Lu Heng [2015-06-11 13:03]: > Hi > > I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. > > *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. > *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of > integrity as it should.* Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given. > It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend > with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG > chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging > things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is. > Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. Back at you. Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 13:53:50 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:53:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > * Lu Heng [2015-06-11 13:03]: > > Hi > > > > I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. > > > > *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* > > Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. > No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert? > > *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level > of > > integrity as it should.* > > Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding > integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this > proposal so that neutrality is given. > I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. > > It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend > > with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as > APWG > > chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not > judging > > things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. > > Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he > is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is. > No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position. > > > Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy > discussion. > > Back at you. > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE > SCYTHE. > -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jun 11 13:59:57 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:59:57 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Hi, > Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding > integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this > proposal so that neutrality is given. Indeed. I am staying out of this discussion and I will limit myself to judging on consensus or not. I admit that I am very annoyed by what is happening on the list at the moment, but I will not let that influence my decision. That will be based on arguments for/against the proposal and how they are addressed. What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections against the proposal have been properly considered. That doesn't mean that every objection blocks the proposal. Rough consensus only requires the objections to be taken seriously and be considered. I will let you know the outcome once I analyse every message from the review phase about this proposal on this mailing list. This might take a while... Please be a bit patient. Cheers, Sander From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jun 11 14:00:00 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:00 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <20150611092914.GF35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150609202731.GB54385@Space.Net> <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <6EC3910C-1DB2-4A7F-83CA-CF86E58B18A9@rfc1035.com> <20150611092914.GF35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <0D4B648B-088C-4665-98D3-132BCA13F669@steffann.nl> Hi Sasha, > Another thing that may help is to move away from mailing lists as > the sole tool - email is something that only old farts like > myself are really comfortable with, not to mention very open to > abuse as we've seen. There are more modern collaboration tools > available, something like Etherpad maybe... See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-chair-meeting-summary item V :) Cheers, Sander From petr at fast-telecom.net Thu Jun 11 14:00:27 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:00:27 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" : > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >> * Lu Heng [2015-06-11 13:03]: >>> Hi >>> >>> I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. >>> >>> *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* >> >> Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. > > No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case,?Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert? > >>> *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of >>> integrity as it should.* >> >> Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding >> integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this >> proposal so that neutrality is given. > > I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. > >>> It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend >>> with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG >>> chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging >>> things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. >> >> Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he >> is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is. > > No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position. > >>> Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. >> >> Back at you. >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A? 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > 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. --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Jun 11 14:11:12 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:11:12 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <5F795FEC-F83A-4B6F-AC31-1FFF3FD20E0B@rfc1035.com> On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng wrote: > No, I am not questioning his integrity, So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.] This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. PLEASE. Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist the temptation to add more noise. From apwg at c4inet.net Thu Jun 11 14:13:35 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:13:35 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC In-Reply-To: <0D4B648B-088C-4665-98D3-132BCA13F669@steffann.nl> References: <3462391433882111@web10h.yandex.ru> <20150609204753.GF54385@Space.Net> <20150610110241.GT54385@Space.Net> <02C10340-09B9-4264-9396-1038C252F835@rfc1035.com> <20150610121737.GE35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <6EC3910C-1DB2-4A7F-83CA-CF86E58B18A9@rfc1035.com> <20150611092914.GF35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <0D4B648B-088C-4665-98D3-132BCA13F669@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20150611121335.GG35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:00:00PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: >See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-chair-meeting-summary item V :) Way ahead of me, I see. Nice one, thanks to the Chairs. rgds, Sascha Luck From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 14:15:51 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:15:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and hide his personal preference while making calls. Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions, you can not say I am going to sentence that guy for 10 years just because I don't like what he is doing. And while you are making mistaken judgement, people have rights to complaint to higher level to make things right. Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov wrote: > A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) > > 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" : > > Hi > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger < > sebastian at karotte.org> wrote: > >> * Lu Heng [2015-06-11 13:03]: > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. > >>> > >>> *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* > >> > >> Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. > > > > No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's > integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG > is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage > the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become > personal to Gert? > > > >>> *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the > level of > >>> integrity as it should.* > >> > >> Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding > >> integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this > >> proposal so that neutrality is given. > > > > I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking > about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list > while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. > > > >>> It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend > >>> with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as > APWG > >>> chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not > judging > >>> things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. > >> > >> Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he > >> is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is. > > > > No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you > should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that > position. > > > >>> Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy > discussion. > >> > >> Back at you. > >> > >> Sebastian > >> > >> -- > >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE > THE SCYTHE. > >> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > > > -- > > -- > > Kind regards. > > Lu > > > > 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. > > -- > Kind regards, > Petr Umelov > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From raymond.jetten at elisa.fi Thu Jun 11 14:19:09 2015 From: raymond.jetten at elisa.fi (Jetten Raymond) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:19:09 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: Enough, i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: 11. kes?kuuta 2015 15:16 To: Petr Umelov Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; chair at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and hide his personal preference while making calls. Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions, you can not say I am going to sentence that guy for 10 years just because I don't like what he is doing. And while you are making mistaken judgement, people have rights to complaint to higher level to make things right. Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov > wrote: A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" >: > Hi > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger > wrote: >> * Lu Heng > [2015-06-11 13:03]: >>> Hi >>> >>> I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. >>> >>> *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* >> >> Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity. > > No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert? > >>> *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of >>> integrity as it should.* >> >> Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding >> integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this >> proposal so that neutrality is given. > > I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion. > >>> It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend >>> with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG >>> chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging >>> things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. >> >> Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he >> is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is. > > No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position. > >>> Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. >> >> Back at you. >> >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) >> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. >> -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > 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. -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Jun 11 14:23:28 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:23:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150611122328.GY54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52:49PM +0200, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job! I certainly hope to spur a good discussion by having people *not* agree with me :-) - but thanks for the encouraging words. We do our best. 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 h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 14:30:03 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:30:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <5F795FEC-F83A-4B6F-AC31-1FFF3FD20E0B@rfc1035.com> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <5F795FEC-F83A-4B6F-AC31-1FFF3FD20E0B@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng wrote: > > > No, I am not questioning his integrity, > > So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you > *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any > further.] > I did not see why I was very wrong while I feel some of the judgement of the Chair was not right. I think as community member, I have all my rights to question Chair's Integrity while I feel so. > > This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. > PLEASE. > The purpose I have said in the first Email: I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. If you believe such purpose was not useful, I reserve my personal opinion. > > Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that > privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not > feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist > the temptation to add more noise. > > All I want is keep future of this list clear and smooth without future encouragement to personal attacks. Shut up does not solve the problem. -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david.freedman at uk.clara.net Thu Jun 11 14:29:15 2015 From: david.freedman at uk.clara.net (David Freedman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:29:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> , Message-ID: Enough, i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. Raymond unsubscribing? I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apwg at c4inet.net Thu Jun 11 14:31:09 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:31:09 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150611123109.GH35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: >Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am >making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my >rights to do so. According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to appeal a grievance in the PDP: 4. Appeals Procedure If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce at ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and stop debating the definition of a chair. rgds, Sascha Luck From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 14:34:53 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:34:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <20150611123109.GH35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> <20150611123109.GH35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: Hi Sascha: Thanks for the link. Yes, please consider appeal has been made, and I will expect responds from WGCC and Chair of Ripe. Thanks. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > >> Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am >> making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my >> rights to do so. >> > > According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to > appeal a grievance in the PDP: > > 4. Appeals Procedure > > If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the > matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group > Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must > be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy > Announce Mailing List (policy-announce at ripe.net). The appeal will > also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the > RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific > description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was > submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks > after the appealable action has occurred. > The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject > appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC > should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being > made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any > discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. > > If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, > the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of > the RIPE Chair will be final. > > I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and > stop debating the definition of a chair. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Thu Jun 11 14:49:30 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:49:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150611124930.GA54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +0000, David Freedman wrote: > i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. > > Raymond unsubscribing? Raymond, please do not! > I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily interpreted as "trying to hide the truth", "stop free speech" or whatever. I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, point taken). So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not discussing personal gripes? Gert Doering -- speaking as myself -- 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 garry at nethinks.com Thu Jun 11 14:57:09 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:57:09 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> Message-ID: <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not > "illegitimate" and "abuse". I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide whether a transfer was permitted or not ... >From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason? Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?) Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year *putting on flame-resistant armor* -garry From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 14:58:25 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:58:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <20150611124930.GA54385@Space.Net> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <1751921434024027@web23j.yandex.ru> <20150611124930.GA54385@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert and rest of the list: I will stop posting and I believe all my points has been made. I will expect answer from WGCC and Chair of Ripe for the outcome of this appeal. Let's go back to the policy. (And apologised to anyone feel disturbed, because it was really not first time me and my company being put in the list, I have never responded but this time, I do feel I have to do something to stop being mentioned again and again as a bad guy in the community , for real, in past 7 years I was in the Ripe community, I did not post anything ever for my personal interest in the public list as well as speaking in the micphone in Ripe meeting, I tried my best to learn, and as one of very young people to the community, I even tried my best to bring more young people at their 20s to join the discussion) On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +0000, David Freedman wrote: > > i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, > goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. > > > > Raymond unsubscribing? > > Raymond, please do not! > > > I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to > reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. > > I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is > complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily > interpreted as "trying to hide the truth", "stop free speech" or whatever. > > I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than > I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, > point taken). > > So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions > regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not > discussing personal gripes? > > Gert Doering > -- speaking as myself > -- > 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 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 11 15:18:23 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:18:23 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Ask RIPE NCC going to routing level to check announcement might not be such a good idea. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents > >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. > > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG > > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via > > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not > > "illegitimate" and "abuse". > I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or > rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as > several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal > does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. > > I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both > IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger > opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments > (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it > will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the > policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow > late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). > > Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there > are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some > wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide > whether a transfer was permitted or not ... > > From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: > > * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official > papers/registration information) > * is there actually any other justifiable reason? > > Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not > necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even > weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) > > * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact > customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) > * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how > could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an > announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a > certain amount of time (3 months?) > > Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) > are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for > the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus > allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. > > Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 > months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be > extended by 1 year > > *putting on flame-resistant armor* > > -garry > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe at opteamax.de Thu Jun 11 15:49:50 2015 From: ripe at opteamax.de (Opteamax GmbH) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:49:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <557991FE.5010404@opteamax.de> Hi Garry, all your points are totally right. So ... when will we start writing that much stricter proposal ... I'd be happy to assist! But: announcement-validation is not a valid mechanism ... for that you'd need only one real internet connected router and a VM running e.g. bird, which announces your prefixes. I remember about 10 years ago, when I was trying to request a /17 for a hoster in US at Arin, we were forced to provide a list with full customer contact-data for all our IPs assigned ... and they really contacted customers of us asking if they were running hosts in our address-space ... So if NCC does not have to handle all this transfer documentation anymore, LIR openers and closures, they'd have enough time to really validate requirement for transfer. As already written in earlier mails ... if the hurdle of reasoning why a transfer is high enough, the market will break ... and honestly I am sure that this would fasten up V6 deployment enormously! BR Jens - Certified to be flame-resistant - On 11.06.2015 14:57, Garry Glendown wrote: > > From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: > > * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official > papers/registration information) > * is there actually any other justifiable reason? > > Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not > necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even > weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) > > * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact > customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) > * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how > could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an > announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a > certain amount of time (3 months?) > > Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) > are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for > the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus > allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. > > Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 > months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be > extended by 1 year > > *putting on flame-resistant armor* > > -garry > > > !DSPAM:637,557986be102931108720806! > -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo at opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Thu Jun 11 15:59:06 2015 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:59:06 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Thu Jun 11 16:02:57 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:02:57 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> Message-ID: I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Action Delete On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, "Garry Glendown" wrote: > > >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents > >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. > > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG > > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via > > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not > > "illegitimate" and "abuse". > I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or > rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as > several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal > does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. > > I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both > IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger > opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments > (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it > will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the > policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow > late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). > > Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there > are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some > wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide > whether a transfer was permitted or not ... > > From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: > > * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official > papers/registration information) > * is there actually any other justifiable reason? > > Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not > necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even > weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) > > * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact > customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) > * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how > could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an > announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a > certain amount of time (3 months?) > > Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) > are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for > the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus > allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. > > Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 > months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be > extended by 1 year > > *putting on flame-resistant armor* > > -garry > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From catrangiumarius at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:03:57 2015 From: catrangiumarius at gmail.com (Marius Catrangiu) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:03:57 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This method, i think, is very near to discrimination if not backed up with something concrete. And for the RIPE NCC is a lot of work to detect witch new LIR has possible connections with all existing LIRS. Can you think of a method that could do this detection automaticaly ? On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:59 PM, David Huberman < David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem > of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of > selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC > should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. > > Obvious point 1: > It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but > does not impact legitimate market behavior. > > Obvious point 2: > The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous > requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) > > We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the > staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is > taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: > > "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the > purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be > denied." > > Just throwing out ideas, > David > > David R Huberman > Principal, Global IP Addressing > Microsoft Corporation > > > -- Catrangiu Marius Mobil: 0770481857 Mail: catrangiumarius at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Thu Jun 11 16:10:31 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:10:31 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: References: <1434013833.1901.7.camel@gmail.com> <557985A5.30800@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Sorry previous mail Garry not aimed at you My point is if consultation is closed .... these emails are a waste of everyones time... including this one sorry On 11 Jun 2015 15:02, "Tom Smyth" wrote: > I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject > Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft > Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements > for IPv4 Allocations) > > Action Delete > On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, "Garry Glendown" wrote: > >> >> >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >> >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. >> > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG >> > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via >> > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not >> > "illegitimate" and "abuse". >> I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or >> rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as >> several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal >> does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. >> >> I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both >> IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger >> opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments >> (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it >> will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the >> policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow >> late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). >> >> Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there >> are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some >> wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide >> whether a transfer was permitted or not ... >> >> From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: >> >> * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official >> papers/registration information) >> * is there actually any other justifiable reason? >> >> Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not >> necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even >> weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) >> >> * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact >> customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) >> * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how >> could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an >> announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a >> certain amount of time (3 months?) >> >> Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) >> are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for >> the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus >> allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. >> >> Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 >> months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be >> extended by 1 year >> >> *putting on flame-resistant armor* >> >> -garry >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sebastian at karotte.org Thu Jun 11 16:41:28 2015 From: sebastian at karotte.org (Sebastian Wiesinger) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:41:28 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150611144128.GB23913@danton.fire-world.de> * David Huberman [2015-06-11 16:03]: > Hello, > > I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the > problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the > exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright > fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of > the APWG. I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s). One thing that came to my mind was to reinstate IPv4 requirements for that last /8? Perhaps require a specific use for the /22? I can already hear people shouting that this is not worth it. But the situation will probably get worse before it gets better. When ARIN runs out (hard) it might get worse even more so. It's impossible to see what the state of the system will be in 10 years but I'm still thinking we should preserve addresses for newcomers instead of letting people make money off of it (which they will probably NOT spend on IPv6 deployments). My hope is that the IPv4 market will get smaller in the same way that IPv6 grows and there are signs that IPv6 adoption is finally increasing in speed. So perhaps this problem will solve itself in the next few years. > Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a > duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they > do.) > > We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower > the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such > activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads > something like: > > "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened > for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a > request may be denied." The question is how would it be clear? I'm not so sure that this is something the NCC staff would be comfortable to decide. But perhaps we should ask the NCC if there are cases where they could be reasonably sure that a new LIR tries to game the system. (Like having ExampleCorp1-20 which are owned by the same person open 20 LIRs) Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 19:09:24 2015 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:09:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Marius Catrangiu wrote: > This method, i think, is very near to discrimination if not backed up with > something concrete. > And for the RIPE NCC is a lot of work to detect witch new LIR has possible > connections with all existing LIRS. > Can you think of a method that could do this detection automaticaly ? I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning. There are other options, some a bit far out there, but either way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion). We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement. Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4. This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Consider that iOS requirement Apple just announced and we it's a short term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From apwg at c4inet.net Thu Jun 11 19:35:17 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:35:17 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150611173517.GI35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: >I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if >they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. >How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain >system can handle it with some minor tuning. Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board) >way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place >for this discussion). Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. >We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed >as a requirement. hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. >Or we could request that new LIR show that >they actual are doing business as in showing an approved >accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words >here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing >business before they can get IPv4. Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible. > This will however actual >exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, >but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents... >term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease >IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck From office at ip4market.ru Thu Jun 11 19:55:36 2015 From: office at ip4market.ru (Staff) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <20150611173517.GI35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <20150611173517.GI35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: >> I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if >> they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. >> How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain >> system can handle it with some minor tuning. > > Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests > could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board) > >> way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place >> for this discussion). > > Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to > backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their > supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. > >> We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed >> as a requirement. > > hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try > an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. > >> Or we could request that new LIR show that >> they actual are doing business as in showing an approved >> accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words >> here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing >> business before they can get IPv4. > > Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is > still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources > for private use and long may it be possible. > >> This will however actual >> exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, >> but, really, I don't care much about that problem. > > Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE > Service Region? > Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a > mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two > continents... > >> term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease >> IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. > > Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a > captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the > process. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > From petr at fast-telecom.net Thu Jun 11 20:19:52 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:19:52 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> References: <20150611173517.GI35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> Message-ID: <484961434046792@web4m.yandex.ru> I agree with Yuri and want to warn you next. Why do we discuss about profit? We can also say that ISPs or Hosting Providers get IPs, then start their servers, networks and make profit. It's too bad. Let's close this hole. This proposal won't solve IPv4 exhaustion problem, due to the part of transfers from the last /8 is too small. 11.06.2015, 20:55, "Staff" : > Greetings! > > Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources > take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget > about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use > it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use > IPv4. > > If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people > who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to > allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. > > Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for > several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market > price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start > selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they > will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no > secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and > fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. > > There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. > > What do community thinks? > > Yuri > > On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: >> ?On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: >>> ?I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if >>> ?they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. >>> ?How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain >>> ?system can handle it with some minor tuning. >> >> ?Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests >> ?could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board) >> >>> ?way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place >>> ?for this discussion). >> >> ?Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to >> ?backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their >> ?supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. >> >>> ?We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed >>> ?as a requirement. >> >> ?hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try >> ?an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. >> >>> ?Or we could request that new LIR show that >>> ?they actual are doing business as in showing an approved >>> ?accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words >>> ?here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing >>> ?business before they can get IPv4. >> >> ?Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is >> ?still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources >> ?for private use and long may it be possible. >> >>> ?This will however actual >>> ?exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, >>> ?but, really, I don't care much about that problem. >> >> ?Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE >> ?Service Region? >> ?Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a >> ?mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two >> ?continents... >> >>> ?term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease >>> ?IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. >> >> ?Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a >> ?captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the >> ?process. >> >> ?rgds, >> ?Sascha Luck --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From frettled at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 20:48:04 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:48:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> References: <20150611173517.GI35191@cilantro.c4inet.net> <5579CB98.2020505@ip4market.ru> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Staff wrote: > > > Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for > several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market > price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start > selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they > will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no > secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and > fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. > > There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. > > What do community thinks? > > You seem to lack an argument as to why 2048 addresses would make everything so much "better" than 1024 addresses. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ak at list.ak.cx Thu Jun 11 21:24:27 2015 From: ak at list.ak.cx (Andre Keller) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:24:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5579E06B.5090904@list.ak.cx> On 08.06.2015 15:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 7 July 2015. support. From mike at iptrading.com Thu Jun 11 23:33:42 2015 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:33:42 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004901d0a48e$4a4dac20$dee90460$@iptrading.com> Hello List, Here is my trial balloon attempting to offer a policy which prevents gaming. The concept is that it is simpler to attack the incentive than wade into the quagmire of defining legitimate business operations. I propose that new RIPE LIRs get their /22, but it only becomes fully vested as an asset after 5 years. Before that time, RIPE won't allow these 185/8 addresses to be transferred without RIPE being paid the balance of the 5 years' worth of membership fees. So the new LIR gets the /22 and pays the annual membership fee to RIPE. After 5 payments the addresses are fully transferable. If the new LIR goes out of business and returns the addresses, they don't owe anything further. If the new LIR wants to sell the addresses, he first has to pay the balance of 5 years membership dues to RIPE. So if he sells the addresses after one year, he has to pay four years of RIPE membership dues before they process the transfer. This lets the new LIR accumulate asset value in the addresses over time and gives him the option of selling or returning the addresses. I chose 5 years because right now 5 years of RIPE fees is roughly the cost for a /22. This will not be overly burdensome to RIPE staff, as analysis is only performed when and if a transfer of 185/8 addresses is submitted. This will not require judgement calls on the part of RIPE staff. If prices skyrocket, we can adjust the number of years. (Not commenting on prior policy but providing commentary on Mr.Huberman's post.) Thoughts? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation From rgori at wirem.net Thu Jun 11 23:48:38 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:48:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557A0236.4080307@wirem.net> Hi all, fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. A patent is useful when registered, detailed described and made public so that anyone can understand the benefit and re-do the same following patent istructions. Not in a drawer. It becomes a rich business when you can make it available to the market at a so resoanable (sometimes not) price a that people don't need to build up it themself. I hate the guys whos eyes are rolling with dollar symbol when they see a new business opportunity: speculators. I love people that when find a new business are entusiat to do business with it 'cause it solve a problem or makes life easier and better and they can make money with it. I don't think policy 2015-01 will save IPv4 and I don't think it is its purpose. I don't think this will make someone richer and someone else poorer, that's a market thing. I like it in its simpleness: just an alignement. Transferred IPs have to be holded 24 months... with 2015-01 *all* transferred IPs have to be holded 24months that's it. "Simple and clean" as considered by Gert ad RIPE69 listeing to proposal. In the past someone chated the system with fake address plans "I need more address space" Now someone cheats the system with fake "I need a new LIR" I can't see any difference in this and to me 2015-01 looks fair enough. am with Sebastian >I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that >will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s). About "must deploy IPv6" I remeber you that IPv6 allocation requirement has been just removed from /22 IPv4 requests. Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" You don't even need an IPv6 address space to ask for IPv4 /22 Now remember that RIPE task is to distribute resources and think about it. from NRO stats https://www.nro.net/statistics 2012 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.02 ARIN 2.86 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13 https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph https://www.arin.net/ task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think? Another point: Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) Please note the "Arguments Opposing the Proposal" It may reintroduce needs justification to the RIPE region [...] Finally I think the policies are going the right way. This won't stop speculators or fix everything but is trying to save the task of distributing resources in a bottom - up fair way (read as approved from the community) Standing on me I finally decided study better IPv6 and understand its market problem and I will try spend some work in that direction next months. Even if 17 years old he's still a teen and see a couple of market problems in it. From RIPE70 i decided to go this way and I'll get in touch with IETF and try to put some ideas in and see if something can help. kind regards Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net wirem.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frettled at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 23:56:33 2015 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:56:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <557A0236.4080307@wirem.net> References: <557A0236.4080307@wirem.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Riccardo Gori wrote: > Hi all, > > fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE > task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. > (...) > > 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN > RIPE 1.09 > ARIN 0.13 > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph > https://www.arin.net/ > > task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you > think? > Without acknowledging your interpretation of "distributing resources", I would like to point out that when ARIN in a very short time no longer has any of these resources to distribute, they will, _forever_, fail to do their task, while RIPE still will carry out that task. So if we accepted your premise that that is _The Task_, RIPE will be performing the task better than ARIN, and not vice versa. -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgori at wirem.net Fri Jun 12 00:41:03 2015 From: rgori at wirem.net (Riccardo Gori) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:41:03 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <557A0236.4080307@wirem.net> Message-ID: <557A0E7F.7030503@wirem.net> Hi Jan, thanks for you reply Il 11/06/2015 23.56, Jan Ingvoldstad ha scritto: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Riccardo Gori > wrote: > > Hi all, > > fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind > that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. > > > (...) > > > 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN > RIPE 1.09 > ARIN 0.13 > https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph > https://www.arin.net/ > > task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't > you think? > Was ironic to point out that there are many different point of views. Someone thinks that IPv6 will grow when IPv4 will be completly exhausted. I can't see any other reason to allow inter-RIR transfert (2014-05) to address the need of address space where is available or "stock-piled and unused" So the good guy who stockpiled is the old cheater that needed IPv4 /15 - /17 or the new cheater that needed many IPv4 /22 ? I see no differences. About the policy in RIPE region: Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) I see easiness in 2015-01 I see "alignement", you can find the same rule 24months in 2014-05 > > Without acknowledging your interpretation of "distributing resources", > I would like to point out that when ARIN in a very short time no > longer has any of these resources to distribute, they will, _forever_, > fail to do their task, while RIPE still will carry out that task. I think they should have an IPv6 /12 as other RIRs to distribute... > > So if we accepted your premise that that is _The Task_, RIPE will be > performing the task better than ARIN, and not vice versa. > -- > Jan I think both are complying the task as well as the bottom-up approved policies. regards good night Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori at wirem.net wirem.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arash_mpc at parsun.com Fri Jun 12 09:34:18 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:34:18 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> Hi Yuri, In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it. (and the only backbone provider has no IPv6 to offer to ISPs). So some Iranian ISPs have to buy IPv4 from other LIRs mostly based in other countries (approx. 1milion IP per year) to be able to meet their network growth needs. (Iran has 80milion population while the total IPv4 allocations is around 10milion) I think that redistributing additional blocks from the last /8 should be based on some additional criteria and not every LIR should be entitled to receive it. (for example if the first /22 has been sold by the LIR, no additional block as the LIR has not a real need for that) Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. I support the idea of letting them receive additional blocks from RIPE NCC directly for their own use. Regards, Arash Naderpour Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 From: Staff To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: <5579CB98.2020505 at ip4market.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri From ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm Fri Jun 12 09:44:08 2015 From: ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:44:08 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> Hello, On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the > moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use > it. > Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current > policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy. -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail From andreas.larsen at ip-only.se Fri Jun 12 09:59:30 2015 From: andreas.larsen at ip-only.se (Andreas Larsen) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:59:30 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) In-Reply-To: <12236_1431351156_5550AF74_12236_1070_1_2AF4C0655C93DD4D9A005252D465A8082F625579@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <5550AF02.4080108@list.ak.cx> <12236_1431351156_5550AF74_12236_1070_1_2AF4C0655C93DD4D9A005252D465A8082F625579@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <6C1B7D52-7FB2-4C15-86A4-7C4CD1376D6F@ip-only.se> I support this proposal +1 This will hopefully stop some of the short term golddigging in the the dying ipv4 world. Med v?nlig h?lsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Bes?ksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se 11 maj 2015 kl. 15:32 skrev herve.clement at orange.com: +1 -----Message d'origine----- De : address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] De la part de Andre Keller Envoy? : lundi 11 mai 2015 15:31 ? : address-policy-wg at ripe.net Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards Andr? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 10:00:35 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:00:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <574A240F-B12D-4978-BC9F-25CCF4CF6E35@anytimechinese.com> Hi If you want to put up a national firewall then you shouldn't allow v6 until that v6 version firewall is ready. China on the other hand has it's v6 firewall ready and at this time difficult to overcome at massive size( for v4 vpn can solve the problem) > ? 2015?6?12????9:44?Aleksi Suhonen ??? > > Hello, > >> On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: >> In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the >> moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use >> it. > >> Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current >> policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. > > Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy. > > -- > Aleksi Suhonen > > () ascii ribbon campaign > /\ support plain text e-mail > From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 10:01:40 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:01:40 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: > What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections > against the proposal have been properly considered. how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed. it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but through the DoS and ad homina, things seem pretty clear. randy From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 10:10:37 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:10:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Hi randy: I agree with you it seems too obvious to not understand what is going on. But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of them), however if such consensus is not declared this time, I am not seeing consensus on this will ever have a chance to be reached(for the obvious reason). So here is the puzzle. ? 2015?6?12????10:01?Randy Bush ??? >> What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections >> against the proposal have been properly considered. > > how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed. > it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but > through the DoS and ad homina, things seem pretty clear. > > randy > From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 10:15:22 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:15:22 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: > Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 randy From gert at space.net Fri Jun 12 10:20:48 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:20:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20150612082048.GM54385@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:10:37AM +0200, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare > consensus if there are still people disagree I can. And we have in the past. We prefer if people can be convinced to, at least, give up their objections after a good debate (or even support the common goal, or help shape the text into something that achieves the original goal but takes the issues raised into account). This does not always work out - sometimes, people will not agree, period. In that case, we have to balance supporting arguments, opposing arguments, and whether they have been answered properly. If the result of that is "the main argument brought up against the proposal is that it is actually doing what it is supposed to do" we can happily go forward. See also RFC 7282 - we do not hum, but the model described (especially for *rough* consensus, and a loud minority trying to disturb process) describes what we do quite well. 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 jim at rfc1035.com Fri Jun 12 10:24:36 2015 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:24:36 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <8324D030-1A99-432D-8BDE-A1F467F90AAD@rfc1035.com> On 12 Jun 2015, at 09:10, h.lu at anytimechinese.com wrote: > But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of them) You're wrong. The generally accepted definition of consensus is lack of sustained, reasonable objection. This does not mean everyone has to agree: that's unanimity. A consensus determination does not mean there are no objections either. Some people may well disagree with a proposal. That does not give them a veto on the proposal and their objection(s) don't necessarily block the WG from reaching consensus. I suggest you read RFC7282. Although this documents how the IETF defines consensus, much of that applies to other similar organisations and communities such as RIPE. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 10:25:12 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (h.lu at anytimechinese.com) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:25:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Hi randy: I have read this, and I also know I might not as experience as you. Let me put it again: Chair can not declare consensus if there are still Many people disagree.(real or fake that's another topic). But we need to find ways to close the loop, just I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass. ? 2015?6?12????10:15?Randy Bush ??? >> > > i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding > the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 > > randy > > From arash_mpc at parsun.com Fri Jun 12 10:36:49 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:36:49 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> Hi Aleksi, Thanks for your email, Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are "skipping IPv4 completely"? I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of their developing stage. (no matter how hard community policies make it for them, when there is no IPv6 option they just can't use it). If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider their conditions too. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Aleksi Suhonen [mailto:ripe-ml-2015 at ssd.axu.tm] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:44 PM To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Cc: Arash Naderpour Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Hello, On 06/12/2015 10:34 AM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the > moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow > to use it. > Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current > policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. Honestly? Most developing countries are skipping IPv4 completely or as much as possible. If Iran has really banned IPv6 they deserve to pay themselves sick for IPv4. Furthermore, RIPE NCC does not have enough IPv4 addresses to give Iranians, even if we as a community wished for a special Iranian policy. -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 10:39:06 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:39:06 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. In-Reply-To: References: <20150611114821.GB10439@danton.fire-world.de> <2537E5C8-98C7-4396-BF4C-E35DBD4FE719@steffann.nl> Message-ID: you may also find http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WGChairTraining/rtgwg_train_2.pdf useful > I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass. from what i understand, discussion of this proposal has already closed. i was traveling, so came on a week of (so called) 'discussion' all at once. i did not learn much; it was mostly repetitive, much more noise and ad homina than actual facts or fact based arguments (in the constructive sense of 'argument'). there is an american idiom "it's all over but the shouting," http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It's+all+over+but+the+shouting which sadly seems apt. randy From ingrid at ripe.net Fri Jun 12 10:54:14 2015 From: ingrid at ripe.net (Ingrid Wijte) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:54:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC Message-ID: <557A9E36.9030604@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA on 11 June 2015. 202240-203263 203264-204287 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 11:29:55 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:29:55 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> Message-ID: > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are > "skipping IPv4 completely"? i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion. > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of > their developing stage. yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more. > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider > their conditions too. it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well. randy From arash_mpc at parsun.com Fri Jun 12 12:24:01 2015 From: arash_mpc at parsun.com (Arash Naderpour) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:24:01 +1000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Hi Randy, "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of community and they just cannot get over it. That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM To: Arash Naderpour Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are > "skipping IPv4 completely"? i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should be using ipv6" religion. > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of > their developing stage. yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't no more. > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider > their conditions too. it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of us have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old discussions. it boiled down to o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new entrants at least run a NAT o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy phase. ah well. randy From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 12:54:21 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:54:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business. One thing I see in over past years is people in the tech community think while we built a new land, people will immediately go there simplify because there are more space, however, concentration effect does play an more important role in this game, and why, because IPv6 in technology wise, it does not bring significant business benefits other than more of them, so in business view, it is simply cheaper(not like CPU or web design language, the improvement over years are tremens). So actions like turn on IPv6 day will help promote future of the IPv6, increase the concentration rate of the users in IPv6, however, totally abundant IPv4 will take long time, the reason for that, the IPv4 is very cheap. How many IP address a small size e-commerce website need, /24 will be already a lot, 256 IP at today's market, most E-commerce are paying 2 USD per month for, so it is 500 USD a month in cost, in which, is really not cost a lot. And I believe the provider to the website will pay more than 72USD(3 year return) per address to buy IP address to serve this customer simply because they receive 24USD per year from these addresses. And if you think of real world rent, most shop in most city center, rent cost will almost be one third or half of their total revenue, no surprise that no business has real business incentive to move over to IPv6. if you consider the size of IPv6 only network today(in which practically is none, everyone still have IPv4 access, no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access network). I see IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exists for many years to come, the cost to use IP address has been surprising kept at real minimum for many many years, so no business will not provide IPv4 access.while more business providing IPv6 access might encourage more deployment of IPv6 in the end user, the age of the dual stack I believe will last my generation. For the reason that, cost of deploy dual stack compare to the risk of losing customer of lacking of IPv4 access, is really minimum. But no surprise to that, network won't break, business won't be affected, IP address end of day, is simply an globe rule of set of numbers to identify something, 32 bit or 128 bit, as long as you can reach someone, there is no worries there. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Arash Naderpour wrote: > Hi Randy, > > "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point > of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. > What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of > community and they just cannot get over it. > > That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that > acting > as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. > > I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed and > we may need to adapt to new conditions. > > Regards, > > Arash Naderpour > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM > To: Arash Naderpour > Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs > > > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are > > "skipping IPv4 completely"? > > i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should > be > using ipv6" religion. > > > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of > > their developing stage. > > yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there ain't > no more. > > > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last > > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider > > their conditions too. > > it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the > discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of > us > have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old > discussions. it boiled down to > o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it > o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone > in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" > o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it > o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new > entrants at least run a NAT > o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it > o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life > o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it > > it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy > phase. ah well. > > randy > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 12:58:36 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:58:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide end customer IPv6 access only network" On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > I see IPv4 and IPv6 like land in the real world, the remote land are very > cheap and the centre land are very expensive, however unless there is > enough incentives from the city planning, no body will move out of the city > center because of high housing price/high rent, especially business. > > One thing I see in over past years is people in the tech community think > while we built a new land, people will immediately go there simplify > because there are more space, however, concentration effect does play an > more important role in this game, and why, because IPv6 in technology wise, > it does not bring significant business benefits other than more of them, so > in business view, it is simply cheaper(not like CPU or web design language, > the improvement over years are tremens). > > So actions like turn on IPv6 day will help promote future of the IPv6, > increase the concentration rate of the users in IPv6, however, totally > abundant IPv4 will take long time, the reason for that, the IPv4 is very > cheap. > > How many IP address a small size e-commerce website need, /24 will be > already a lot, 256 IP at today's market, most E-commerce are paying 2 USD > per month for, so it is 500 USD a month in cost, in which, is really not > cost a lot. And I believe the provider to the website will pay more than > 72USD(3 year return) per address to buy IP address to serve this customer > simply because they receive 24USD per year from these addresses. And if you > think of real world rent, most shop in most city center, rent cost will > almost be one third or half of their total revenue, no surprise that no > business has real business incentive to move over to IPv6. if you consider > the size of IPv6 only network today(in which practically is none, everyone > still have IPv4 access, no provider today will be able provide end customer > IPv6 access network). > > I see IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exists for many years to come, the cost to use > IP address has been surprising kept at real minimum for many many years, so > no business will not provide IPv4 access.while more business providing IPv6 > access might encourage more deployment of IPv6 in the end user, the age of > the dual stack I believe will last my generation. For the reason that, cost > of deploy dual stack compare to the risk of losing customer of lacking of > IPv4 access, is really minimum. > > But no surprise to that, network won't break, business won't be affected, > IP address end of day, is simply an globe rule of set of numbers to > identify something, 32 bit or 128 bit, as long as you can reach someone, > there is no worries there. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Arash Naderpour > wrote: > >> Hi Randy, >> >> "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a point >> of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. >> What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of >> community and they just cannot get over it. >> >> That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that >> acting >> as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. >> >> I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are changed >> and >> we may need to adapt to new conditions. >> >> Regards, >> >> Arash Naderpour >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:30 PM >> To: Arash Naderpour >> Cc: 'Aleksi Suhonen'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs >> >> > Can you please give me some example of developing countries that are >> > "skipping IPv4 completely"? >> >> i suggest that it is not productive to spend bandwidth on the "you should >> be >> using ipv6" religion. >> >> > I think there are still good numbers that need to use IPv4 because of >> > their developing stage. >> >> yep. but there is a small problem. we are out of ipv4 space. there >> ain't >> no more. >> >> > If we as the community are looking for additional distribution of last >> > /8 (as suggested by Yuri), I think It would be better to consider >> > their conditions too. >> >> it would save a lot of shouting if you (and yuri and ...) read the >> discussion of the last/8 proposal so we do not have to repeat it; many of >> us >> have too damned much real work to do to spend time repeating old >> discussions. it boiled down to >> o ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o if the last /8 was left in the allocation pool, it would be gone >> in a small number of weeks and we would be back to "ipv4 is gone" >> o so, ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o if we do the one minimal allocation for a new LIR, it will let new >> entrants at least run a NAT >> o but ipv4 is essentially gone, we need to get over it >> o so some greedy animals will fight over the scraps. that's life >> o bottom line, ipv4 space is gone, we need to get over it >> >> it seems we may have underestimated the destructive aspects of the greedy >> phase. ah well. >> >> randy >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 13:31:48 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:31:48 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: > "ipv4 is gone and we need to get over it" maybe looks correct from a > point of view, but it does not for everyone in the community. there is no more. that is a fact. > What I'm trying to say is that IPv4 is the only option for a part of > community and they just cannot get over it. what you are saying is that the need continues. i agree. but, as there is no more, the need will not be fulfilled. > That part of community (mostly developing countries) are the one that > acting as the buyer and the IPv4 market exists when there is a need. the ipv4 market is not allocating more ip space, it is shuffling the existing space. most folk have gotten over their denial that this is, and will continue to be, the reality. > I try to read the discussion of the last/8 proposal, things are > changed and we may need to adapt to new conditions. yes, the new conditions are that we are acually in the last days. 32 bits is 32 bits and that's not gonna change. and C is gonna limit latency. randy From randy at psg.com Fri Jun 12 13:34:24 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:34:24 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: > One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide > end customer IPv6 access only network" i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this randy From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 13:37:12 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:37:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: Hi I don't know what you mean by cernet2. Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well. But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student use IPv6 to download movies(in which makes high traffic volume). On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide > > end customer IPv6 access only network" > > i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this > > randy > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 12 13:44:30 2015 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:44:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: Hi Just checked around a bit, confirmed with few of my classmates in China as well. http://www.edu.cn/info/cernet2_lpv6/ It's still not IPv6 access only network, it is just dual stack at end user level. It's upgrade IPv6 part of the cernet while every user still can access IPv4. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > I don't know what you mean by cernet2. > > Cernet in China does provide IPv4 access as well. > > But they charge IPv4 traffic and do not charge IPv6 traffic, so student > use IPv6 to download movies(in which makes high traffic volume). > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> > One correction to my last post "no provider today will be able provide >> > end customer IPv6 access only network" >> >> i believe cernet2 in china does exactly this >> >> randy >> > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From millnert at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 22:07:01 2015 From: millnert at gmail.com (Martin Millnert) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:07:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs In-Reply-To: References: <001201d0a4e2$353711b0$9fa53510$@parsun.com> <557A8DC8.20103@ssd.axu.tm> <001c01d0a4ea$eff94e20$cfebea60$@parsun.com> <002b01d0a4f9$e9f56590$bde030b0$@parsun.com> Message-ID: <1434139621.1901.44.camel@gmail.com> Randy, I think the following bit, while true for final-/8 RIR pools, in the large scheme is incorrect: On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 20:31 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > but, as there is no more, the need will not be fulfilled. I'd say: Seller meets buyer at a mutually agreed upon transaction price. The relative need two parties experience on one set of address space is most easily expressed in monetary terms. The role of the RIRs going forward in depleted-IPv4-land is to carry the public ledger. However, any business plan relying on margin on transaction fees for supply from RIR final-/8 is extremely shortsighted and the community shouldn't give any concern for it since it is stupid in its limited horizon and shortsightedness. (One of the reasons I'd just like this to be all over now is so we can skip this phase of destructive denial.) /M From tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu Sun Jun 14 22:06:34 2015 From: tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu (Tom Smyth) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:06:34 -0400 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation) In-Reply-To: <5576BC37.80609@nethinks.com> References: <5576BC37.80609@nethinks.com> Message-ID: Makes sense, +1 On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > > >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 >> >> > +1 > > Regards, Garry > -- 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 thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net Fri Jun 19 13:56:21 2015 From: thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net (Thomas Drewermann) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:56:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy Message-ID: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> Dear colleagues, we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi. The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer. How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V. From vladimir at quick-soft.net Fri Jun 19 14:06:53 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:06:53 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> Message-ID: <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> Hello! Why wouldn't they become a LIR? 19.06.2015, 15:03, "Thomas Drewermann" : > Dear colleagues, > > we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk > Community in germany. > They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on > their own. > As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used > to lease addresses to clients/users. > According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. > > Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically > can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the > current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. > > I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be > used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients > are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI > assignment e.g. via wifi. > > The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address > provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for > usage by the connecting client/user/customer. > > How do you think about that situation? > What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? > > Regards > Thomas Drewermann > Freifunk Rheinland e.V. --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From chrislist at de-punkt.de Fri Jun 19 14:15:34 2015 From: chrislist at de-punkt.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:15:34 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > Hello! > > Why wouldn't they become a LIR? >> Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically >> can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the >> current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. --ck From vladimir at quick-soft.net Fri Jun 19 14:23:38 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:23:38 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> Message-ID: <1202371434716618@web27m.yandex.ru> Another way: 1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; 3) Announce your prefix; Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum". 19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" : > ?Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: >> ??Hello! >> >> ??Why wouldn't they become a LIR? > >>> ??Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically >>> ??can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the >>> ??current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. > > ?As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal > ?organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members > ?without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of > ?connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. > > ?--ck --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From vladimir at quick-soft.net Fri Jun 19 14:24:29 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:24:29 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <1202371434716618@web27m.yandex.ru> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> <1202371434716618@web27m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <1206421434716669@web27m.yandex.ru> One fix: Not "inetnum" and "route" but "inet6num" and "route6". 19.06.2015, 15:23, "Vladimir Andreev" : > Another way: > > 1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; > 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; > 3) Announce your prefix; > > Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum". > > 19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" : >> ??Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: >>> ???Hello! >>> >>> ???Why wouldn't they become a LIR? >> >>>> ???Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically >>>> ???can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the >>>> ???current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. >> >> ??As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal >> ??organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members >> ??without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of >> ??connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. >> >> ??--ck > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net Fri Jun 19 18:24:27 2015 From: thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net (Thomas Drewermann) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:24:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <1206421434716669@web27m.yandex.ru> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> <1202371434716618@web27m.yandex.ru> <1206421434716669@web27m.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5584423B.9040407@freifunk-rheinland.net> Hi Vladimir, in that manner they would not be independent from us as organization. If anything happens to us they would lose their subnet which has been allocated by us. I forgot one tought in my first mail. To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use either. Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the company holding the PI assignment. That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well. Regards Thomas Am 19.06.2015 14:24, schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > One fix: > > Not "inetnum" and "route" but "inet6num" and "route6". > > 19.06.2015, 15:23, "Vladimir Andreev" : >> Another way: >> >> 1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by RIPE NCC to LIR; >> 2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS; >> 3) Announce your prefix; >> >> Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR "inetnum". >> >> 19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" : >>> Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> Why wouldn't they become a LIR? >>>>> Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically >>>>> can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the >>>>> current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. >>> As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal >>> organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members >>> without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of >>> connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world. >>> >>> --ck >> -- >> With best regards, Vladimir Andreev >> General director, QuickSoft LLC >> Tel: +7 903 1750503 > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 > > From Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz Fri Jun 19 21:52:10 2015 From: Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBDYWxldGth?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:52:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> Message-ID: <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a): > Dear colleagues, > > we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk > Community in germany. > They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on > their own. > As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used > to lease addresses to clients/users. > According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Hello Thomas, list, I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give a single /64 to customer, are you? On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated. > > Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically > can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the > current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees. What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 addreses that could be assigned to customers. > > I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be > used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients > are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI > assignment e.g. via wifi. I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really need them, thus flodding the global routing table. Best regards, Ond?ej Caletka CESNET > > The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address > provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for > usage by the connecting client/user/customer. > > How do you think about that situation? > What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? > > Regards > Thomas Drewermann > Freifunk Rheinland e.V. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3265 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: From sander at steffann.nl Fri Jun 19 21:59:21 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:59:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: <381AD3AF-B13A-44D6-8D92-B94418B8D81E@steffann.nl> Hi, > What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as > a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and > at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 > addreses that could be assigned to customers. One option is to get 8 freifunk communities together, start one LIR between them, get a /29 from RIPE NCC and then let each community use a /32 from that. I have a personal LIR that 'donated' a /32 to a community in such a way and it works fine. The deaggregation from /29 to /32 is not great, but not something that causes much trouble in the DFZ. Cheers, Sander From max at rfc2324.org Sun Jun 21 16:38:38 2015 From: max at rfc2324.org (Maximilian Wilhelm) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 16:38:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: <20150621143838.GP3678@principal.rfc2324.org> Anno domini 2015 Ond?ej Caletka scripsit: Hi Ond?ej, hi list, > I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network > oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to > hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its > fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give > a single /64 to customer, are you? God no :) A Freifunk network is a mesh network (build upon a BATMAN Layer 2 mesh in most cases, but other solutions exist, OLSR based f.e.) where interested individuals can connect their Freifunk node to and become part of that independent "peoples network". So a /48 allocation/assignment would be totally enough to fulfill this scenario(s). > On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, > comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all > addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation > infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated. What definition would be required for "organization"? Usually a local Freifunk community is organized as lose group of interested people who may or may not have set up a registered association to have a legal entity. The goal behind Freifunk is that everyone can participate in a free and open wifi network by just bying some wifi hardware, installing some pimped OpenWRT software on it and connecting it to the wifi cloud (or via VPN to central network points). There is no central management of all nodes, membership requirement or anything the like. > > Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically > > can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the > > current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. > Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if > something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI > assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. > I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining > independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees. > What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as > a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and > at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 > addreses that could be assigned to customers. Well that's basicly the idea behind Freifunk Rheinland :) Which is fine for legacy IP 'n stuff but for larger Freifunk networks raises some problems and limitation as Thomas mentioned. > > I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be > > used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients > > are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI > > assignment e.g. via wifi. > I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI > addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation > where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really > need them, thus flodding the global routing table. Although I get your points, there's an operational downside to this: As every Freifunk community which exists or pops up in any major and minor city around Germany operates on their own, each community would need to have a /32 assignment to be able to set up local peerings. Some local ISPs would sponsor peerings and provide IPv6 transit for free if we were able to announce our own prefix to them which we can't today even if we have a /48 assignment from "our" Freifunk alliance LIR (as this would probably be filtered away by most of you as it's from the PA pool). As communities don't have money for leased lines/dark fiber/etc. to connect to one or better two of those central LIRs only VPNs/GRE tunnel to central nodes are in the cards and local peerings are out of the picture. I'd really like to leverage the offers of our local ISPs to peer with us and provide IPv6 upstream for more stable connectivity, less latency and more bandwidth. So our only hope would be to get a /48-PI prefix (or a /32 PA one which would be hugh waste of addresse space in my opinion) and wouldn't make a difference in number of routes in the DFZ anyway. Kind regards Max Freifunk Paderborn (+Freifunk Rheinland associate) From apwg at c4inet.net Sun Jun 21 19:58:34 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:58:34 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: <20150621175834.GE36186@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:52:10PM +0200, Ond?ej Caletka wrote: >I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI >addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation >where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really >need them, thus flodding the global routing table. You might as well get used to the idea. If seen as a loose federation of independent "network clouds" (as I understand the Freifunk idea, correct me if I'm wrong), this offers a first glimpse into how things will be if and when the "Internet of Things" becomes something more than vapourware. We might as well start thinking about how to solve the coming resource management issues. For the Freifunk people here, could you provide some detail on how this is solved for IPv4 at the moment? rgds, Sascha Luck From apwg at c4inet.net Sun Jun 21 20:05:27 2015 From: apwg at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck [ml]) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 19:05:27 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <5584423B.9040407@freifunk-rheinland.net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <2035281434715613@web10j.yandex.ru> <558407E6.7@de-punkt.de> <1202371434716618@web27m.yandex.ru> <1206421434716669@web27m.yandex.ru> <5584423B.9040407@freifunk-rheinland.net> Message-ID: <20150621180527.GF36186@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 06:24:27PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote: >I forgot one tought in my first mail. >To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks >provided by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use >either. >Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the >company holding the PI assignment. >That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well. ISTR this discussion on this list before ;) I think the consensus was that single devices, temporarily becoming part of the End User's network, do not count as "assignment to third parties". It's a different story for a /64 assigned to a customer's VM infrastructure though - which is perhaps comparable to the Freifunk case... rgds, Sascha Luck From max at rfc2324.org Sun Jun 21 23:38:27 2015 From: max at rfc2324.org (Maximilian Wilhelm) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:38:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <20150621175834.GE36186@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <20150621175834.GE36186@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <20150621213827.GD26058@principal.rfc2324.org> Anno domini 2015 Sascha Luck [ml] scripsit: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 09:52:10PM +0200, Ond?ej Caletka wrote: > >I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI > >addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation > >where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really > >need them, thus flodding the global routing table. > You might as well get used to the idea. If seen as a loose > federation of independent "network clouds" (as I understand the > Freifunk idea, correct me if I'm wrong), this offers a first > glimpse into how things will be if and when the "Internet of > Things" becomes something more than vapourware. We might as well > start thinking about how to solve the coming resource management > issues. When by ?loose federation of independet "network clouds"? you see every Freifunk community as one or more clouds which are loosely federated by mail/IRC communicated admins, then I could agree :) > For the Freifunk people here, could you provide some detail on > how this is solved for IPv4 at the moment? There currently are some solutions used by the different communities: a) each "Gateway" (central node in the Batman mesh network) has it's own VPN uplink to $vpn_provider (for legal reasons, usually outsite .de (think: St?rerhaftung)) with NAT44 on the gateway and usually on VPN provider site, too. a2) Some internal routing to some concentrator nodes, then VPN uplinks there + NAT(s). b) GRE uplinks to Freifunk Rheinland e.V. who - as becoming LIR a not long ago - own a /22 and delegate small prefixes to each community over GRE tunnels + NAT44 before the GRE uplinks. c) I know of a least one lucky community which got a /24 delegation sponsored from one friendly ISP in northern Germany - may he out himself as I guess he's on this list - so they can use direct peerings for v4, too. But as legacy IP already is depleted there's not much thought put into that area in general as there's not much which can be done about it if there's no solution c) available. Personally I don't worry about IPv4 (besides building some active-active NAT44 solution with option ?b? right now, which is kind of PITA) and put more hope into IPv6 where a large enough prefix which we could announce directly would enormously improve our upstream situation. I hope I could shed some light on the topic. Best Max -- If it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway. From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jun 22 12:10:26 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:10:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus on 2015-01 Message-ID: <1FAD91BE-622A-4C1E-B146-2FFA9F559782@steffann.nl> Hello working group, Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they supported the proposal. These included: - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of the final /8 policy - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: - Andre Keller - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) - Carsten Br?ckner (after deadline) - Carsten Schiefner - Christopher Kunz - Daniel Suchy - Dimitri I Sidelnikov - Erik Bais - Florian Bauhaus - Garry Glendown - Gerald Krause - Havard Eidnes - Herve Clement - Jan Ingvoldstad - Jens Ott - Marius Catrangiu - Martin Millnert (after deadline) - Mick O Donovan - Ond?ej Caletka - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN - Riccardo Gori - Richard Hartmann - Robert Sleigh - Sebastian Wiesinger - Thomas Schallar - Tim Kleefass - Tom Smyth (after deadline) - Tore Anderson - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) - Vladislav Potapov David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the final /8. The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a retroactive change are: - Sascha Luck - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and this policy proposal is no different. There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not have much weight in my analysis. There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) - Aleksey Bulgakov - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) - Borhan Habibi - Ciprian Nica - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) - Petr Umelov - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy proposal authors. There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership cost per member to increase. These were: - Ciprian Nica - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.". Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: - Ciprian Nica - Storch Matei In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 pool seems short as it is. Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From mschmidt at ripe.net Mon Jun 22 13:37:19 2015 From: mschmidt at ripe.net (Marco Schmidt) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:37:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Last Call for Comments (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chair has declared that rough consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 21 July 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 21 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jun 22 14:06:36 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:06:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus on 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" In-Reply-To: <1FAD91BE-622A-4C1E-B146-2FFA9F559782@steffann.nl> References: <1FAD91BE-622A-4C1E-B146-2FFA9F559782@steffann.nl> Message-ID: And this time with a fixed subject line so that it is clearly visible which policy proposal we are talking about :) > Op 22 jun. 2015, om 12:10 heeft Sander Steffann het volgende geschreven: > > Hello working group, > > Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. > > At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. > > First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they supported the proposal. These included: > - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy > - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of the final /8 policy > - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later > > Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: > - Andre Keller > - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) > - Carsten Br?ckner (after deadline) > - Carsten Schiefner > - Christopher Kunz > - Daniel Suchy > - Dimitri I Sidelnikov > - Erik Bais > - Florian Bauhaus > - Garry Glendown > - Gerald Krause > - Havard Eidnes > - Herve Clement > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Jens Ott > - Marius Catrangiu > - Martin Millnert (after deadline) > - Mick O Donovan > - Ond?ej Caletka > - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > - Riccardo Gori > - Richard Hartmann > - Robert Sleigh > - Sebastian Wiesinger > - Thomas Schallar > - Tim Kleefass > - Tom Smyth (after deadline) > - Tore Anderson > - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) > - Vladislav Potapov > > David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. > > Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the final /8. > > The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a retroactive change are: > - Sascha Luck > - Storch Matei > - Vladimir Andreev > > There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and this policy proposal is no different. > > There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not have much weight in my analysis. > > There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: > - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) > - Aleksey Bulgakov > - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) > - Borhan Habibi > - Ciprian Nica > - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) > - Petr Umelov > - Sergey Stecenko > - Storch Matei > - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) > > During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy proposal authors. > > There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership cost per member to increase. These were: > - Ciprian Nica > - Sergey Stecenko > - Storch Matei > - Vladimir Andreev > > The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.". > > Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: > - Ciprian Nica > - Storch Matei > > In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 pool seems short as it is. > > Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. > > Sincerely, > Sander Steffann > APWG co-chair > > From sander at steffann.nl Mon Jun 22 21:14:22 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:14:22 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Consensus on 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" In-Reply-To: References: <1FAD91BE-622A-4C1E-B146-2FFA9F559782@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <1AE64D89-AC05-45E4-AB07-14710D192243@steffann.nl> Hi working group, Lu Heng asked me to rectify my summary. He has also expressed support for the policy proposal during the review phase and his name was indeed not listed. Please consider him a supporter of this proposal as well. Cheers, Sander > Op 22 jun. 2015 om 14:06 heeft Sander Steffann het volgende geschreven: > > And this time with a fixed subject line so that it is clearly visible which policy proposal we are talking about :) > >> Op 22 jun. 2015, om 12:10 heeft Sander Steffann het volgende geschreven: >> >> Hello working group, >> >> Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. >> >> At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. >> >> First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they supported the proposal. These included: >> - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy >> - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of the final /8 policy >> - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later >> >> Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: >> - Andre Keller >> - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) >> - Carsten Br?ckner (after deadline) >> - Carsten Schiefner >> - Christopher Kunz >> - Daniel Suchy >> - Dimitri I Sidelnikov >> - Erik Bais >> - Florian Bauhaus >> - Garry Glendown >> - Gerald Krause >> - Havard Eidnes >> - Herve Clement >> - Jan Ingvoldstad >> - Jens Ott >> - Marius Catrangiu >> - Martin Millnert (after deadline) >> - Mick O Donovan >> - Ond?ej Caletka >> - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN >> - Riccardo Gori >> - Richard Hartmann >> - Robert Sleigh >> - Sebastian Wiesinger >> - Thomas Schallar >> - Tim Kleefass >> - Tom Smyth (after deadline) >> - Tore Anderson >> - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) >> - Vladislav Potapov >> >> David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. >> >> Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the final /8. >> >> The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a retroactive change are: >> - Sascha Luck >> - Storch Matei >> - Vladimir Andreev >> >> There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and this policy proposal is no different. >> >> There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not have much weight in my analysis. >> >> There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: >> - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) >> - Aleksey Bulgakov >> - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) >> - Borhan Habibi >> - Ciprian Nica >> - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) >> - Petr Umelov >> - Sergey Stecenko >> - Storch Matei >> - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) >> >> During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy proposal authors. >> >> There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership cost per member to increase. These were: >> - Ciprian Nica >> - Sergey Stecenko >> - Storch Matei >> - Vladimir Andreev >> >> The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.". >> >> Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: >> - Ciprian Nica >> - Storch Matei >> >> In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 pool seems short as it is. >> >> Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sander Steffann >> APWG co-chair > > From petr at fast-telecom.net Wed Jun 24 21:47:15 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:47:15 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] What's going on Message-ID: <2072231435175235@web29j.yandex.ru> 2015-06-24 14:37 GMT+03:00 Marco Schmidt : > Dear colleagues, > > Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and the > stage each has reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). > > If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so > on the relevant working group mailing list. > PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" > OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can only be > re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC > can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the transfer > requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations. > RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% of > the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after they have > been allocated. But there were several calculations showing that the part of the transfers from the last /8 is less than 3% There are facts but europeens somehow don't see them. > STATUS: Last Call > WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > DEADLINE: 21 July 2015 > FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > > We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. > > Kind regards, > > Marco Schmidt > RIPE Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From petr at fast-telecom.net Wed Jun 24 22:04:12 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 23:04:12 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] What's going on In-Reply-To: <2072231435175235@web29j.yandex.ru> References: <2072231435175235@web29j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <2109851435176252@web29j.yandex.ru> Also 10% is as [number of transfers]/[number of allocations made by the RIPE NCC] for last 6 months But how can you know when has been the transfered block allocated? It can be allocated last year but transfered only now. 24.06.2015, 22:47, "Petr Umelov" : > 2015-06-24 14:37 GMT+03:00 Marco Schmidt : >> ?Dear colleagues, >> >> ?Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and the >> ?stage each has reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). >> >> ?If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so >> ?on the relevant working group mailing list. > >> ?PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" >> ?OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can only be >> ?re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC >> ?can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the transfer >> ?requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations. >> ?RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% of >> ?the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after they have >> ?been allocated. > > But there were several calculations showing that the part of the transfers from the last /8 is less than 3% > There are facts but europeens somehow don't see them. > >> ?STATUS: Last Call >> ?WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> ?DEADLINE: 21 July 2015 >> ?FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > >> ?We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. >> >> ?Kind regards, >> >> ?Marco Schmidt >> ?RIPE Policy Development Officer >> ?RIPE NCC > > -- > Kind regards, > Petr Umelov --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net Sat Jun 27 15:29:54 2015 From: thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net (Thomas Drewermann) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:29:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> Message-ID: <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> Hello Ond?ej, list, the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to the wireless networks. In Regards to the alliance out of some freifunk communities to obtain a PA-block: I don't think it makes any difference if there are 8 more prefixes /32 (from PA) or /48 (from PI) in the DFZ. Count of prefixes in the DFZ would be the same for both scenarios. Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would be a waste of addresses. Besides the costs of a LIR membership won't be easy to afford event not for 8 communities. @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure." That problem has already been identified. (page 8) https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf Thanks, Thomas Am 19.06.2015 21:52, schrieb Ond?ej Caletka: > Dne 19.6.2015 v 13:56 Thomas Drewermann napsal(a): >> Dear colleagues, >> >> we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk >> Community in germany. >> They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on >> their own. >> As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used >> to lease addresses to clients/users. >> According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. > Hello Thomas, list, > > I'm not sure what networks typically a freifunk community network > oparates. But if it can be compared to a very small "ISP" with tens to > hundreds customers, than the PI assignment is not an option due to its > fixed size of /48 which is simply not enough. You are not going to give > a single /64 to customer, are you? > > On the other hand, if the freifunk only operates a few hot spots, > comparable to some Wi-Fi service in a restaurant, etc. then all > addresses can be in my opinion counted as a part of organisation > infrastructure so the PI rules would not be violated. > >> Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically >> can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the >> current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. > Everybody would like to be independent to have some back-up scenario if > something happen to their main uplink ISP. However, every new PI > assignment have a permanent negative impact on the global routing table. > I therefore think it is reasonable to have some limit for obtaining > independent resources such as the RIPE NCC membership fees. > > What if the freifunk communities formed an alliance and become a LIR as > a part of the alliance? It would lower the costs of becoming a LIR and > at the same time allow communities to get enough independent IPv6 > addreses that could be assigned to customers. > >> I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be >> used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients >> are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI >> assignment e.g. via wifi. > I don't think it's a good idea. There is a reason why the usage of PI > addresses is restricted. I think your proposal would lead to a situation > where everybody uses PI addresses just-in-case even if they don't really > need them, thus flodding the global routing table. > > Best regards, > Ond?ej Caletka > CESNET > >> The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address >> provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for >> usage by the connecting client/user/customer. >> >> How do you think about that situation? >> What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? >> >> Regards >> Thomas Drewermann >> Freifunk Rheinland e.V. > From gert at space.net Sat Jun 27 15:42:35 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:42:35 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> Message-ID: <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote: > the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. > There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to > the wireless networks. So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading? I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. [..] > Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would > be a waste of addresses. The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right* way to waste addresses. Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66. > @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. > Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: > "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service > provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service > provider's infrastructure." > > That problem has already been identified. (page 8) > https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but that's a topic for the AGM to decide...) 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 max at rfc2324.org Sat Jun 27 16:51:01 2015 From: max at rfc2324.org (Maximilian Wilhelm) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:51:01 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20150627145101.GP26058@principal.rfc2324.org> Anno domini 2015 Gert Doering scripsit: Hi, > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 03:29:54PM +0200, Thomas Drewermann wrote: > > the Freifunk communities are not going to give /64 to end users. > > There will be one single IPv6 address leased to end users connecting to > > the wireless networks. > So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind > his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading? Hell no :) There is no "his router". > I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. There seems to be a fundamental misunterstanding: A user in this case is a human using his/her/its mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a local Freifunk node). It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the Freifunk network to connect own network, so by definition there is no need for NAT. (There are some considerations to used routed /64 inside the Freifunk mesh network instead of a large L2 segment but even then there would be no intended scenario where anyone would connect some non-Freifunk router.) We provide an access network for single devices not for (home) networks and by no means plan on changing that. > [..] > > Since no Freifunk communities has the need for a /32 prefix that would > > be a waste of addresses. > The whole point of IPv6 is to have plenty of addresses - and as there are > 4 billion /32s, using one to give your users at least a /64 is the *right* > way to waste addresses. Do not encourage anyone to use NAT66. This is not an intended scenario for a Freifunk network. We don't want to be in competition with any regular ISP. And we certianly won't encourage anyone to use NAT66. > > @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. > > Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: > > "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service > > provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service > > provider's infrastructure." > > > > That problem has already been identified. (page 8) > > https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf > Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs > to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. Well how about single IP address without NAT? > Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever > brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. > (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can > understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional > ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial > basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in > the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable > solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now > the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, > I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot > in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might > want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but > that's a topic for the AGM to decide...) IMHO that would be something worth a discussion. Kind regards Max Freifunk Paderborn / Freifunk Rheinland -- If it doesn't work, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway. From thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net Sat Jun 27 16:56:59 2015 From: thomas at freifunk-rheinland.net (Thomas Drewermann) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:56:59 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <558EB9BB.5090307@freifunk-rheinland.net> Hi Gert, > So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind > his router? User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading? > > I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach. > > [..] There won't be user's/customer's networks behind. All routers are part of the Freifunk infrastructure. All users will be on temporary basis like a guest network. Form them there will be no use for more than a single address. We are not going to use IPv6 NAT/Masquerading neither are we encouraging anyone to do so. >> @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4. >> Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured: >> "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service >> provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service >> provider's infrastructure." >> >> That problem has already been identified. (page 8) >> https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf > Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs > to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world. I think a device like a user's cell phone or laptop connecting doesn't need more the a single address. And everyone needing a subnet must operate a Freifunk router on his/her own. This router will be then part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure. So he/she operating a part of the infrastructure won't be considered a user. So there will be no problem in usage of the PI space except a "guest" user connecting temporarily. Because their devices won't be considered as part of the Freifunk communities infrastructure. > > Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever > brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI. Will it be legimate to use adresses out of an PI assignment to lease them to users connecting temporarily? Besides the Freifunk use case there are some company's guest networks which have the same need. I don't think that the policy contains a statement about that. What do you think? > > (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do. I can > understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional > ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial > basis and needs IPv6 addresses. So using PA space from a friendly ISP in > the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable > solution... yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now > the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses, > I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot > in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it". We might > want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but > that's a topic for the AGM to decide...) The Freifunk community I requested the PI space for doesn't demand a free ride. I tought that PI AS/space is the legitimate way for small orgs to get a slot in the global routing system. Isn't that the case? The key difference between Freifunk and ISP business is that there is no service providing to anyone except temporary wireless users. Everyone who wants more than just to use the network temporarily must operate his/her own router and get part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure. The Freifunk communitiy is no instituation you can order a network service from. That's why there are no assignments of /64 to users. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair Thanks, Thomas From Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz Sat Jun 27 22:36:25 2015 From: Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz (=?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBDYWxldGth?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:36:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <20150627145101.GP26058@principal.rfc2324.org> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> <20150627145101.GP26058@principal.rfc2324.org> Message-ID: <558F0949.7080309@cesnet.cz> Hello, Dne 27.6.2015 v 16:51 Maximilian Wilhelm napsal(a): > A user in this case is a human using his/her/its > mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi > network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a > local Freifunk node). In that case, I think you should be able to count users' devices sharing a common /64 as a part of your "organisation infrastructure". I thought such use is not against the PI policy for IPv6, but now I'm not certain about anything :) -- Ond?ej Caletka CESNET -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3265 bytes Desc: Elektronicky podpis S/MIME URL: From randy at psg.com Sun Jun 28 02:19:26 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 09:19:26 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy In-Reply-To: <20150627145101.GP26058@principal.rfc2324.org> References: <55840365.2060402@freifunk-rheinland.net> <558472EA.708@cesnet.cz> <558EA552.2090306@freifunk-rheinland.net> <20150627134235.GW67883@Space.Net> <20150627145101.GP26058@principal.rfc2324.org> Message-ID: > A user in this case is a human using his/her/its > mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt device and connects it to the wifi > network (or connects it via ethernet cable to a network port of a > local Freifunk node). > > It is no intended scenario that anyone connects a router to the > Freifunk network to connect own network so i can not use my mobile/tablet/laptop/youNameIt as a tether? randy From shahin at gharghi.ir Mon Jun 29 21:16:17 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:46:17 +0430 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Message-ID: Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years? So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them, so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be important to reserve more and more again?. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP?s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal?s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi From gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 21:28:30 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:28:30 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:46:17PM +0430, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop > making financial profit out of IPv4. "new arguments, please" 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 petr at fast-telecom.net Mon Jun 29 21:34:32 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:34:32 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From office at ip4market.ru Mon Jun 29 21:42:20 2015 From: office at ip4market.ru (Manager) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:42:20 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Message-ID: Agree, propousal is not good. There ara lot of facts about it.?If propousal will be accepted it s good idea to publish current stats at public and compare situation after 6, 12, 24 months. Becouse free ipv4 at ripe is growing. It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21 but not /22. Then a lot of companies who has ip space not in use prefer to transfer it. And space will be more fair redistributed between members. And any limits on transfers are not good too. Then situation will be controled by members, but not ripe. Yuri at ip4market ?????????? ? ?????????? Samsung -------- ???????? ????????? -------- ??: Shahin Gharghi ????: 29.06.2015 22:16 (GMT+02:00) ????: address-policy-wg at ripe.net ????: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years?? So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them,? so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be? important to reserve more and more again?. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP?s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal?s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like? to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us? and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 21:44:18 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:44:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > Hi.

The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months It does not. And please, arguments like "this will not stop abuse", "this is not going far enough", "we have enough addresses" and "it's my good right to make money out of the last-/8 policy and so do not call it abuse!!" have been heard and duly considered. If you can come up with a NEW argument that can be reasonably backed by factual arguments, we're all ears. Repeating what was already repeated often enough in discussion and review phase will only annoy people into ignoring you. 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 petr at fast-telecom.net Mon Jun 29 21:45:43 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:45:43 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladimir at quick-soft.net Mon Jun 29 21:47:19 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:47:19 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> Hello! Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal? 29.06.2015, 22:44, "Gert Doering" : > ?Hi, > > ?On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: >> ??Hi.

The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months > > ?It does not. > > ?And please, arguments like "this will not stop abuse", "this is not > ?going far enough", "we have enough addresses" and "it's my good right > ?to make money out of the last-/8 policy and so do not call it abuse!!" > ?have been heard and duly considered. > > ?If you can come up with a NEW argument that can be reasonably backed > ?by factual arguments, we're all ears. > > ?Repeating what was already repeated often enough in discussion and review > ?phase will only annoy people into ignoring you. > > ?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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 21:48:36 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:48:36 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150629194836.GK67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:42:20PM +0300, Manager wrote: > It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21 but not /22. This can be done, but is outside the scope of *this* proposal (and people are discussing it, so you might see something along that lines, or not) - so that discussion will not be interesting regarding the Last Call status of 2015-01. (As a side note, just speaking up and claiming "I am against the proposal" without even pointing out against *which* proposal is a bit ridiculous - we currently have 4 open proposals in the machinery. Of course we all know which proposal you're all against, since we've had the arguments before, but still, a bit of mailing list etiquette would be nice) 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 gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 21:49:51 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:49:51 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.
Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered. Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote. 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 gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 21:50:54 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:50:54 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150629195054.GM67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal? This is such a good idea that Sander did it two weeks ago in the conclusion summary when he declared rough consensus. Your point being? 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 vladimir at quick-soft.net Mon Jun 29 22:02:42 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:02:42 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629195054.GM67883@Space.Net> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> <20150629195054.GM67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2995721435608162@web5o.yandex.ru> I mean detailed analysis of pros and cons. For example, why wasn't it separately mentioned about M&A as a BIG hole? 29.06.2015, 22:50, "Gert Doering" : > ?Hi, > > ?On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: >> ??Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal? > > ?This is such a good idea that Sander did it two weeks ago in the conclusion > ?summary when he declared rough consensus. > > ?Your point being? > > ?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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From db at rrbone.net Mon Jun 29 21:21:39 2015 From: db at rrbone.net (Dominik Bay) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:21:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55919AC3.4060901@rrbone.net> On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, > last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to > IPv6 in 5 years? Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-) -dominik From leo.vegoda at icann.org Mon Jun 29 22:13:39 2015 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:13:39 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <86f8144771194187971dada693a5dfc0@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Petr Umelov wrote: > Excuse me, /13. I am afraid you have misunderstood the policy. The policy requires allocation units defined as: "IPv4 allocation unit = 1/5 of Recovered IPv4 pool, rounded down to the next CIDR (power-of-2) boundary." with a /24 minimum. The result is that unless the pool size is increased so that it comprises five CIDR prefix equivalents, in which case it would be emptied in one go, the allocated prefixes will halve in size at each allocation period. You can grab the software to see what will be allocated next at: https://github.com/icann/ipv4-recovery-algorithm Kind regards, Leo Vegoda From vladimir at quick-soft.net Mon Jun 29 22:17:07 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:17:07 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> Really? I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander. 29.06.2015, 22:49, "Gert Doering" : > ??Hi, > > ??On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: >> ???Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.
> > ??Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered. > > ??Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote. > > ??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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From petr at fast-telecom.net Mon Jun 29 22:23:19 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:23:19 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> One more argument. For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. 29.06.2015, 23:17, "Vladimir Andreev" : > Really? > > I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander. > > 29.06.2015, 22:49, "Gert Doering" : >> ???Hi, >> >> ???On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: >>> ????Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.
>> >> ???Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered. >> >> ???Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote. >> >> ???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 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov From info at leadertelecom.ru Mon Jun 29 22:28:44 2015 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:28:44 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2015062901010332] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> References: <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <1435609723.256804.287980613.826350.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Dear?Petr, >?But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. Yes, but technically it will be the same. You will transfer this IPs in 2 years and all parties will be happy. You will have IPs. It will stop creating LIRs just for transfers. -- Aleksei ? 29.06.2015 23:23 - Petr Umelov wrote: One more argument. For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. 29.06.2015, 23:17, "Vladimir Andreev" : > Really? > > I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander. > > 29.06.2015, 22:49, "Gert Doering" : >> ???Hi, >> >> ???On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: >>> ????Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.
>> >> ???Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered. >> >> ???Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote. >> >> ???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 > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 --? Kind regards, Petr Umelov ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 22:51:50 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:51:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <2995721435608162@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> <20150629195054.GM67883@Space.Net> <2995721435608162@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150629205150.GN67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:02:42PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > I mean detailed analysis of pros and cons. > > For example, why wasn't it separately mentioned about M&A as a BIG hole? Because that's outside the scope of APWG, and as such, totally not relevant to this proposal. M&A is RIPE NCC procedures. "This proposal does not go far enough" and "there are other holes" arguments have been voiced, and have been considered. 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 gert at space.net Mon Jun 29 22:53:40 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:53:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150629205340.GO67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > One more argument. > > For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) > > But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. > > But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with 2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21". Next. 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 remco.vanmook at gmail.com Mon Jun 29 22:59:41 2015 From: remco.vanmook at gmail.com (remco van mook) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:59:41 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629205340.GO67883@Space.Net> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> <20150629205340.GO67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: (all hats off) If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work, when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy giving you a /22. And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself. Remco On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > > One more argument. > > > > For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk > that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) > > > > But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to > 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. > > > > But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. > > There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with > 2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21". > > Next. > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vladimir at quick-soft.net Mon Jun 29 23:00:03 2015 From: vladimir at quick-soft.net (Vladimir Andreev) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:03 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629205340.GO67883@Space.Net> References: <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <3833151435607143@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194951.GL67883@Space.Net> <3019121435609027@web5o.yandex.ru> <4193661435609399@web13j.yandex.ru> <20150629205340.GO67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2440041435611603@web8h.yandex.ru> Arguments, please. 29.06.2015, 23:53, "Gert Doering" : > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: >> ?One more argument. >> >> ?For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) >> >> ?But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. >> >> ?But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. > > There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with > 2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21". > > Next. > > 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 --? With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503 From petr at fast-telecom.net Mon Jun 29 23:52:06 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:52:06 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <1435609723.256804.287980613.826350.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <1435609723.256804.287980613.826350.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <2362761435614726@web12g.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randy at psg.com Tue Jun 30 04:56:50 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:56:50 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> References: <20150629192830.GI67883@Space.Net> <3810361435606472@web3h.yandex.ru> <20150629194418.GJ67883@Space.Net> <2965091435607239@web5o.yandex.ru> Message-ID: > Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the > proposal? great idea. and we could then have a wg last call. oh wait. we already did all that randy From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 30 06:30:40 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:30:40 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <55919AC3.4060901@rrbone.net> References: <55919AC3.4060901@rrbone.net> Message-ID: <55921B70.6050902@nethinks.com> > On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote: >> First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, >> last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to >> IPv6 in 5 years? > Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-) > Btw, did anybody notice ARIN is down to something like 80 /23 and 400 /24? That's an equivalent of of 140 /22s ... and it's dropping quickly ... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to every site on the Internet) with open eyes ... -garry From randy at psg.com Tue Jun 30 08:07:48 2015 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:07:48 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <55921B70.6050902@nethinks.com> References: <55919AC3.4060901@rrbone.net> <55921B70.6050902@nethinks.com> Message-ID: > ... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is > either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to > every site on the Internet) with open eyes ... or deploying nat. wanna guess which has more takers? From chrislist at de-punkt.de Tue Jun 30 08:54:44 2015 From: chrislist at de-punkt.de (Christopher Kunz) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:54:44 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <2362761435614726@web12g.yandex.ru> References: <1435609723.256804.287980613.826350.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <2362761435614726@web12g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov: > In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to > receive it earlier Hi, now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the underlying business model really is. If ISPs burn through networks in a rate that puts whole /22s on blacklists within two years' time, they should think about the reasons instead of crying wolf. Why should RIPE, RIPE NCC, the community as a whole or anyone else help those people run a parasitic business model? Regards, --ck From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 30 08:57:33 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:57:33 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> References: <1435609723.256804.287980613.826350.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> <2362761435614726@web12g.yandex.ru> <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> Message-ID: <55923DDD.1040504@nethinks.com> > Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov: >> In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to >> receive it earlier > Hi, > > now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the underlying > business model really is. > > If ISPs burn through networks in a rate that puts whole /22s on > blacklists within two years' time, they should think about the reasons > instead of crying wolf. > > Why should RIPE, RIPE NCC, the community as a whole or anyone else help > those people run a parasitic business model? I was already wondering about that, too ... ;) Looks like 2015-1 has more benefits than we originally thought ;) -garry From richih.mailinglist at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 09:14:04 2015 From: richih.mailinglist at gmail.com (Richard Hartmann) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:14:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I consider all arguments exchanged so I am left with thanking chairs for maintaining a modicum of sanity so we don't have to. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From petr at fast-telecom.net Tue Jun 30 10:05:29 2015 From: petr at fast-telecom.net (Petr Umelov) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:05:29 +0300 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> References: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> Message-ID: <129131435651529@web21g.yandex.ru> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gert at space.net Tue Jun 30 10:09:14 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:09:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <129131435651529@web21g.yandex.ru> References: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> <129131435651529@web21g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20150630080914.GR67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: > Persomal attack!

Let's talk substantially

9:54, 30 Please STOP sending HTML formatted mails to this list. 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 shahin at admins.ir Mon Jun 29 13:37:17 2015 From: shahin at admins.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:37:17 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Message-ID: Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years? So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them, so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be important to reserve more and more again?. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP?s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal?s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi From garry at nethinks.com Tue Jun 30 10:47:25 2015 From: garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:47:25 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <129131435651529@web21g.yandex.ru> References: <55923D34.6040005@de-punkt.de> <129131435651529@web21g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <5592579D.5000000@nethinks.com> Guten Tag, > Persomal attack! > > Let's talk substantially While I do not see a personal attack as such (just opposing your argument isn't a personal attack IMHO), let's stick to substantial: Being blacklisted isn't something that is out of an LIR's hands - when they get notified of a problem/abuse on the side of your customers, and they chose not to do anything about it, which in turn leads to blacklisting of not only a single IP but the LIRs *COMPLETE* /22 (which shows that most likely the problem isn't caused by a single IP), I'd say it's not a problem that either RIPE or the community has to solve ... and most certainly not a reason to oppose 2015-1 for ... Regards, Garry From gert at space.net Tue Jun 30 10:50:26 2015 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:50:26 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150630085026.GU67883@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:37:17AM -0700, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop > making financial profit out of IPv4. This argument ("the proposal is not going far enough") has been made before, and was not considered relevant to what *this* proposal aims to do. 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 ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Jun 30 11:11:52 2015 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:11:52 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers In-Reply-To: <20150629194836.GK67883@Space.Net> References: <20150629194836.GK67883@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1435655512.543865.311332497.372927F6@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 21:48, Gert Doering wrote: > This can be done, but is outside the scope of *this* proposal (and people This (or something similar) will return at some point this year as a new proposal. It will follow the PDP before being accepted or not. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs From shahin at gharghi.ir Tue Jun 30 14:32:44 2015 From: shahin at gharghi.ir (Shahin Gharghi) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 05:32:44 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Message-ID: Hi Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not still logically replied. Those questions were: 1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can always transfer by taking ownership of the sellers company. So this proposal would not be beneficial at all. 2- According to the 1st question, and knowing that , there are some dealers who get IP's from RIPE NCC and sell them to customers, Why wouldn?t RIPE NCC sell the IP's directly to them? (By allowing those companies to register new LIR and get new /22). 3- Obviously the internet is increasing and companies need more IP's, and there are some other IP's available in RIPE NCC, Why shouldn't we use them? The people won't think about IPv6 seriously unless they see there is no other IPv4. 4- If people are unable to transfer IP's. They will lend them. (The proposal won't help again) I would be glad to add my arguments to Sander's conclusion. -- Shahin Gharghi From erey at ernw.de Tue Jun 30 21:34:10 2015 From: erey at ernw.de (Enno Rey) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:34:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" Message-ID: <20150630193410.GC78290@ernw.de> Hi, some of you might already cringe just from this mail's subject ;-) I'm currently involved in handling some netblocks which are in "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" state and this turns out to be surprisingly difficult, even in cases where both organizations (that is the LIR holding the covering aggregate and the organization which received the "more specific" PI assignment back in the 90s) apparently agree on a course of action. My impression is that these difficulties not least arise as seemingly no policy exists on "how to convert those assignments into 'ASSIGNED PI' or 'ALLOCATED PA' space". I'm aware that these netblocks might only be "remnant corner cases" totally irrelevant to the majority of the community. Which brings me to the following questions: a) do any of you "feel the same pain" when it comes to these blocks? b) do you think a policy proposal should be prepared how to handle those? I'm willing to prepare sth. c) what could such a proposal look like? What do those concerned think how a reasonable way of moving those blocks into a "stable state" can be identified/described. many thanks in advance for any type of feedback. everybody have a pleasant evening Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================