From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Feb 13 18:43:47 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:43:47 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Message-ID: Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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 info at kosmozz.be Mon Feb 13 19:26:05 2012 From: info at kosmozz.be (KOSMOZZ - Info) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:26:05 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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 lir at elisa.fi Tue Feb 14 08:37:03 2012 From: lir at elisa.fi (lir at elisa.fi) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:37:03 +0200 (EET) Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, it seems to start again, the discussion on the fees. We have not heard too much from Nigels taskforce team that is supposed to propose some new ideas, therefore i decided to write one. I personally wonder when we will be charged based on using IPv6. Most LIRs use a /32 and some use multiple /32, since we all agree that IPv4 is running out, should we start to look into the future and not into the past? (how do we charge new lirs when v4 has run out)... If you want to change the charging scheme, the time to include ipv6 is probably now. To save you all from difficult schemes, if you have a lot of IPv4 or if you have a little because you started later, all together a /32 v6 and a random amount of IPv4 will not have a huge percentage difference in IP:s compared to your /32. After all most who want to change the charging scheme are after charging by ip, per ip, or in percentage... So my basic idea is to develope a charging scheme that is based on IPv6, and not on IPv4. After all a currently "small" or "extra small" LIR gets a /32 as well, so the total amount of IP:s in the end doesn't differ that much in percentage. So a basic fee for the basic v6 space (a /32)(always, the same for everyone), a little variable addition for the old IPv4 space , and a a little addition for every(?) multiple /32. Cheers, Ray On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, KOSMOZZ - Info wrote: > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:26:05 +0000 > From: KOSMOZZ - Info > To: Lu Heng , > "members-discuss at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > > Hi Lu, > > ? > > I was thinking the same.? Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the > amount that has been reserved and not used? > > I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. > > ? > > Kind regards, > > ? > > Filip Herman > > filip at kosmozz.be? > > ? > > KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be? > | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) > > ? > > ? > > ? > > Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng > Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 > Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net > Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > ? > > Hi?Colleagues: > > ? > > Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't > we divided the membership fees as the?percentage?of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) > > ? > > The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as > well. > > ? > > So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's > total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) > > ? > > So make the?format?simple: > > ? > > C=(L/R*100%)*TN > > ? > > Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's > recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real > fair solutions. > > ? > > How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. > > ? > > -- > -- > 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. > > > -- ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten ??? Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Senior System Specialist Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Network Management Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A?? ?????????? raymond.jetten at elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE????????? http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************ From ulf.kieber at green.ch Tue Feb 14 10:47:27 2012 From: ulf.kieber at green.ch (Ulf Kieber) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:47:27 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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 cenk.keylan at 3c1b.com Tue Feb 14 10:57:19 2012 From: cenk.keylan at 3c1b.com (Cenk Keylan) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:57:19 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg at 01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From Terry.Choy at team.telstra.com Tue Feb 14 11:05:12 2012 From: Terry.Choy at team.telstra.com (CHOY, Terry KH) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:05:12 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: <465D64B61D6D5447A789988A15883C8515DD08A32B@HKGTMHMSXCCR.in.reach.com> Check this out from APNIC, they are long time ago to base on the ip resources for membership fee calculation, for your reference. http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl APNIC Annual Membership Fees Calculator Use this tool as a guide to estimate APNIC fees based on a particular resource holding. Enter the amount of IPv4 and IPv6 resources in the relevant fields using 'slash notation'. Top of Form IPv4 eg. /23 + /24 IPv6 eg. /30 + /34 (maximum /56). Bottom of Form IPv4 and IPv6 calculations are done separately. The fee charged is the greater of the two results. Your membership renewal invoices will be calculated based on your resource holdings assessed as at the date of your membership anniversary. * Applies to members only * Estimated fees are based on the higher of IPv4 or IPv6 fees * Address holdings include current and historical resources * Australian organizations are required to pay GST (Goods and Services Tax) on all APNIC fees Best regards, Terry Choy Planning & Development | Internet & Private Networks | Telstra International Group Direct: +852 2983 3025 Email: terry.choy at team.telstra.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:57 PM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [cid:image001.jpg at 01CCEB43.30AC0DA0] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ahakim at damamax.jo Tue Feb 14 11:15:40 2012 From: ahakim at damamax.jo (Aladdin Hakim) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:15:40 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D2050121F1C@exchange.neutelecom.loc> Hello Dears, I totally Agree with ULF , and I suggest to charge a very high fees for the IPv4 subnets that's not utilizing ( let us say 50% or more) . This will help Ripe to get back unused subnets. BR, Aladdin Hakim Data Network Manager [cid:image002.jpg at 01CCEB12.5DB69FD0] P.O. Box 4850 Amman 11953 Jordan Al Madina Al Munawara St., Jad Centre, 2nd Floor Tel: +962 6 5777733 Fax: +962 6 5777744 ( New) Cell: +962 7 88 06 00 69 Email: ahakim at damamax.jo www.damamax.jo From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:57 AM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [cid:image001.jpg at 01CCEB12.31691250] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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. ________________________________ This email is from DAMAMAX Jordan. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please contact DAMAMAX Jordan on +962 6 5777733 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. Please note that neither DAMAMAX jordan nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3411 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From Ben.Fitzgerald-O'Connor at onega.net Tue Feb 14 11:39:52 2012 From: Ben.Fitzgerald-O'Connor at onega.net (Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:39:52 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP's can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps - we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 - once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the 'New Internet' which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 - this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP's have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg at 01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources "IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale." The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I'm a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn't we all be billed for the amount we are using and may'be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I'll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Feb 14 12:33:35 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:33:35 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001365] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D2050121F1C@exchange.neutelecom.loc> References: <16D374348D988A44B16225B8EB76660D2050121F1C@exchange.neutelecom.loc> <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: <1329219215.115169.472882176.173990.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > I totally Agree with ULF , and I suggest to charge? a very high fees for the IPv4 subnets that?s > not utilizing ( let us say 50% or more) . This will help Ripe to get back unused subnets. How are you going to check utilization?? I think that market can regulate this questions. If annual payments will be bigger for big networks - company which is not using IPs will return it back or sale to another company ( it will be great enable this option ). -- Alexey Ivanov General Director? LeaderTelecom Ltd. --? ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001365] ? ???? ??????. --? ? ?????????, ?????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" ? ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 ? URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: ?[2]http://verisign.su/?- SSL-??????????? Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS 14.02.2012 14:26 - Aladdin Hakim ???????(?): Hello Dears, ? BR, ? Aladdin Hakim Data Network Manager P.O. Box 4850 Amman 11953 Jordan Al Madina Al Munawara St., Jad Centre, 2nd Floor Tel:? +962 6 5777733? Fax:? +962 6 5777744 ( New) Cell: +962 7 88 06 00 69 Email: [4]ahakim at damamax.jo [5]www.damamax.jo ? ? ? From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:57 AM To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, ? As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership ?is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. ? Have a nice day, ? Cenk Keylan ? 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 [6]http://www.3c1b.com [7]info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at [8] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources ??????????????? ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? ? The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. ? Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). ? Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. ? Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG ? From: [9]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [10][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; [11]members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, ? I was thinking the same.? Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. ? Kind regards, ? Filip Herman [12]filip at kosmozz.be? ? KOSMOZZ -- [13]http://www.kosmozz.be? | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium ([14]http://www.ispa.be) ? ? ? Van: [15]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [16][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: [17]members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees ? Hi?Colleagues: ? Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the?percentage?of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) ? The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. ? So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) ? So make the?format?simple: ? C=(L/R*100%)*TN ? Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. ? How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. ? -- -- 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. This email is from DAMAMAX Jordan. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please contact DAMAMAX Jordan on +962 6 5777733 quoting the name of the sender and the email address to which it has been sent and then delete it. Please note that neither DAMAMAX jordan nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] mailto:nalbakri at damamax.jo [5] http://www.damamax.jo [6] http://www.3c1b.com/ [7] mailto:info at 3c1b.com [8] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources [9] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [10] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] [11] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [12] mailto:filip at kosmozz.be [13] http://www.kosmozz.be/ [14] http://www.ispa.be/ [15] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [16] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] [17] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3411 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Feb 14 12:52:02 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:52:02 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> Message-ID: <1329220322.309657.901329215.174005.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6? to access the whole > Internet.? More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director? LeaderTelecom Ltd --? ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. --? ? ?????????, ?????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" ? ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 ? URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: ?[2]http://verisign.su/?- SSL-??????????? Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): Hi All, ? IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6? to access the whole Internet. ? In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once ?moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New Internet? which it is. ? New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. ? IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. ? Regards Ben ? From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, ? As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership ?is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. ? Have a nice day, ? Cenk Keylan ? 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 [4]http://www.3c1b.com [5]info at 3c1b.com From: [6]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [7][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: [8]members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at [9] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources ??????????????? ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? ? The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. ? Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). ? Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. ? Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG ? From: [10]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [11][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; [12]members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, ? I was thinking the same.? Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. ? Kind regards, ? Filip Herman [13]filip at kosmozz.be? ? KOSMOZZ -- [14]http://www.kosmozz.be? | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium ([15]http://www.ispa.be) ? ? ? Van: [16]members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [17][mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: [18]members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees ? Hi?Colleagues: ? Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the?percentage?of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) ? The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. ? So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) ? So make the?format?simple: ? C=(L/R*100%)*TN ? Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. ? How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. ? -- -- 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. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] http://www.3c1b.com/ [5] mailto:info at 3c1b.com [6] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [7] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] [8] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [9] http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources [10] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [11] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] [12] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net [13] mailto:filip at kosmozz.be [14] http://www.kosmozz.be/ [15] http://www.ispa.be/ [16] mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [17] mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] [18] mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kurtis at netnod.se Tue Feb 14 13:12:51 2012 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:51 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <465D64B61D6D5447A789988A15883C8515DD08A32B@HKGTMHMSXCCR.in.reach.com> References: <832D73409598DB4493DB85EF8681652082711ADA5A@EXMBSRV01.green-connection.ch> <465D64B61D6D5447A789988A15883C8515DD08A32B@HKGTMHMSXCCR.in.reach.com> Message-ID: <63AD57D8-083B-4BBC-9E30-F05440EED102@netnod.se> On 14 feb 2012, at 11:05, CHOY, Terry KH wrote: > Check this out from APNIC, they are long time ago to base on the ip resources for membership fee calculation, for your reference. > > http://submit.apnic.net/cgi-bin/feecalc.pl And they also have the amount of votes proportional to the resources used... Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden From simont at nse.co.uk Tue Feb 14 13:06:49 2012 From: simont at nse.co.uk (Simon Talbot) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:06:49 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Message-ID: I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole > Internet. More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. -- ? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New Internet? which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg at 01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From info at kosmozz.be Tue Feb 14 13:52:03 2012 From: info at kosmozz.be (KOSMOZZ - Info) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:52:03 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear members, Ripe has designated a Taskforce to figure this out, please let (us) (them) some time to look into this matter. I am a member of this Taskforce. Kind regards to you all, Filip Herman Call us at +32 54 311.400 | E-mail us at info at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Simon Talbot Sent: dinsdag 14 februari 2012 13:07 To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole > Internet. More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. -- ? ?????????, ??????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New Internet? which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg at 01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com info at 3c1b.com From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip at kosmozz.be KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2633 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Tue Feb 14 13:42:30 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:42:30 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> Hello All, Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral. -- William EDIS GmbH Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot: > I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate. > > Simon > > Simon Talbot > Chief Engineer > Net Solutions Europe > T: 020 3161 6001 > F: 020 3161 6011 > www.nse.co.uk > > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. > Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM > To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees > > >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to > > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole > > Internet. > > More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > General Director > LeaderTelecom Ltd > > -- > > ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. > > -- > ? ?????????, > ??????? ?????? > ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" > > ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 > > URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo > URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign > URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS > > > 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): > Hi All, > > IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. > > In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New Internet? which it is. > > New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. > > IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. > > Regards > Ben > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan > Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 > To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > Hi Ulf, > > As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. > > Have a nice day, > > Cenk Keylan > > > 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri > Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 > 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye > Tel > : +90-312-988-0000 > Direkt > : +90-312-988-1015 > Faks > : +90-312-241-2888 > http://www.3c1b.com > info at 3c1b.com > > > > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources > ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? > > The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. > > Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). > > Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. > > Best regards, > Ulf Kieber > Head of NOC > green.ch AG > > From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info > Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 > To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > Hi Lu, > > I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? > I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. > > Kind regards, > > Filip Herman > filip at kosmozz.be > > KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be > | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) > > > > Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng > Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 > Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net > Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > Hi Colleagues: > > Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) > > The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. > > So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) > > So make the format simple: > > C=(L/R*100%)*TN > > Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. > > How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. > > -- > -- > 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. > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Tue Feb 14 15:05:47 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:05:47 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: Hi Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so. A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason. If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to discussion the transfer. Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. With regards. Lu On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber < ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit > companys (if they really make one is not the point). > Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate > reasons but also because this would not be neutral. > > -- > William > EDIS GmbH > > > Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot: > > I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. > Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for > profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds > that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. > It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? > or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate.*** > * > ** ** > Simon**** > ** ** > Simon Talbot > Chief Engineer > Net Solutions Europe**** > T: 020 3161 6001**** > F: 020 3161 6011**** > www.nse.co.uk**** > ** ** > ** ** > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *LeaderTelecom Ltd. > *Sent:* 14 February 2012 11:52 AM > *To:* Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor > *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about > next year's fees**** > ** ** > > >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 > perhaps ? we all need to > > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in > place 6to4 gateways > > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to > access the whole > > Internet. > > More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and > next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 > - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 > will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > General Director > LeaderTelecom Ltd**** > -- > > ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. > > -- **** > ? ?????????,**** > ??????? ?????? **** > ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????"**** > **** > ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 > **** > URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo > URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign**** > URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS**** > > > 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?):**** > Hi All, > > IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps > ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and > to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow > clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. > > In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will > have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all > also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to > plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once > moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has > to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New > Internet? which it is. > > New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the > curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of > doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. > > IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as > IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. > Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 > fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move > ahead on this. > > Regards > Ben > **** > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Cenk Keylan > *Sent:* 14 February 2012 09:57 > *To:* Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees**** > > Hi Ulf, > > As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new > commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused > IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, > we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they > have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to > give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee > they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are > keeping in hand. > > Have a nice day, > > Cenk Keylan > **** > **** > *3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri***** > Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266**** > 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye**** > Tel**** > : +90-312-988-0000**** > Direkt**** > : +90-312-988-1015**** > Faks**** > : +90-312-241-2888**** > http://www.3c1b.com**** > info at 3c1b.com**** > > > > **** > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Ulf Kieber > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM > *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees**** > > Have a look at > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources > ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not > for sale.? > > The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied > registration services by the RIPE NCC.**** > > Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable > ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands > will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). > > Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to > make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, > one fee; budget divided by the number of members. > > Best regards, > *Ulf Kieber* > Head of NOC > green.ch AG**** > **** > *From:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *KOSMOZZ - Info > *Sent:* Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 > *To:* Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees**** > > Hi Lu, > > I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we > are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and > not used? > I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing > matters. > > Kind regards, > > Filip Herman > filip at kosmozz.be > > *KOS**MOZZ* -- http://www.kosmozz.be > | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) > > > > *Van:* members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *Namens *Lu Heng > *Verzonden:* maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 > *Aan:* members-discuss at ripe.net > *Onderwerp:* [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > > Hi Colleagues:**** > **** > Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost > certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees > as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4)**** > **** > The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the > total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well.**** > **** > So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount > address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total > need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C)**** > **** > So make the format simple:**** > **** > C=(L/R*100%)*TN**** > **** > Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on > the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as > "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather > than real fair solutions.**** > **** > How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought.**** > **** > -- > -- > 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.**** > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- 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 Tue Feb 14 15:16:17 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:16:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, > which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use. (Or are you still using IPv4?) 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Tue Feb 14 15:20:59 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:59 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: > > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as > well, > > which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. > > There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use. > > (Or are you still using IPv4?) > Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. > > 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- 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 Tue Feb 14 15:52:07 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:52:07 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20120214145207.GJ7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: > Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to > technical reasons. Now this was a credible excuse in 2002. If you're still using it in 2012, you need a new excuse-book. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at leadertelecom.ru Tue Feb 14 15:54:14 2012 From: info at leadertelecom.ru (LeaderTelecom Ltd.) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:54:14 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401002131] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1329231254.509792.498099149.174067.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> > Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable?future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.? Why? You mean that you need investment in new equipment? Or any other reason? -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. --? ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401002131] ? ???? ??????. --? ? ?????????, ?????????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" ? ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 ? URL: [1]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo URL: ?[2]http://verisign.su/?- SSL-??????????? Verisign URL: [3]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS 14.02.2012 18:21 - Lu Heng ???????(?): Hi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering <[4]gert at space.net> wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, > which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. ? There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use. (Or are you still using IPv4?) ? Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable?future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons.? 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: [5]+49 (89) 32356-444 ? ? ? ? ? ?USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- 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. [1] http://www.InstantSSL.su/ [2] http://verisign.su/ [3] http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ [4] mailto:gert at space.net [5] tel:%2B49%20%2889%29%2032356-444 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Tue Feb 14 16:31:30 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:31:30 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401002131] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <1329231254.509792.498099149.174067.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <20120214141617.GH7742@Space.Net> <1329231254.509792.498099149.174067.2@otrs.hostingconsult.ru> Message-ID: <75A861FE-A041-45AF-8F7B-2AE6B985B9A9@edisglobal.com> >Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. Really? Even phones support IPv6 these days, and even stone old switches and routers can do v6 (if even only in software - but they can, and even with a usable performance). That excuse is really old and can't be used anymore today. William -- EDIS GmbH // Austria Am 14.02.2012 um 15:54 schrieb LeaderTelecom Ltd.: > > Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. > > Why? You mean that you need investment in new equipment? Or any other reason? > > -- > Alexey Ivanov > General Director > LeaderTelecom Ltd. > > -- > > ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401002131] ? ???? ??????. > > -- > ? ?????????, > ??????? ?????? > ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" > > ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 > > URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo > URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign > URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS > > > 14.02.2012 18:21 - Lu Heng ???????(?): > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:05:47PM +0100, Lu Heng wrote: > > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, > > which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. > > There are more IP addresses available than anyone can ever use. > > (Or are you still using IPv4?) > > Unfortuturetlly in the forcastable future we can not use IPv6 due to technical reasons. > > 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > > > -- > 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. > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noc at solido.net Tue Feb 14 16:43:29 2012 From: noc at solido.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Henrik_Kramsh=F8j_Solido_NOC_abuse?=) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:43:29 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> On 14/02/2012, at 15.05, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) It is always interesting to hear from people with different perspectives I don't respond much, and please don't flame me - even though I try to cut down on discussions, that IMHO are futile. Getting "great ideas" on a whim is often not what happens, getting ideas that might seem great on a whim happens more often ;-) No offense intended > > I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as don't have the autherlization to do so. A huge waste of time, lets rather consume the rest - the available space in IPv4 with all addresses would not allow for future growth! Burn, burn, burn! Move to IPv6, relax, drink beer, tea, coffee, what you prefer. > > A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason. I am not even going to join these discussions anymore, I think it is a waste of time to think about new ways to slice the cake, when it is gone already! People still talking about price per IP for ANYTHING (even security testing which we do!) are nuts, sorry - please don't be offended, but you are waisting precious time and resources discussing this. and worse having bean-counters designing a "fair proposal" certainly will end up dividing address space in sub-optimal chunks, and I would predict this could endanger the internet even more than PIPA/SOPA/ACTA etc. > > If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to discussion the transfer. > > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. What we need is incentive, and the best incentive is connectivity, make IPv6 the default, make it simple, make it fast, ... it already makes doing addressing plans much easier - "how big a subnet do we allocate"-questions are gone. and to stuff like "our software/hardware/people don't understand IPv6", sorry - if people are not staying informed about important "news" discussed since the middle of the 1990s - whose fault is that? People that have dug themselves into a hole, can keep the hole ... Hey, in the best case we will have some stagnant ISP die, great :-) Best regards Henrik > With regards. > > Lu > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber wrote: > Hello All, > > Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit companys (if they really make one is not the point). > Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral. > > -- > William > EDIS GmbH > > > Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot: > >> I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate. >> >> Simon >> >> Simon Talbot >> Chief Engineer >> Net Solutions Europe >> T: 020 3161 6001 >> F: 020 3161 6011 >> www.nse.co.uk >> >> >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. >> Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM >> To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees >> >> >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to >> > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways >> > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole >> > Internet. >> >> More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". >> >> -- >> Alexey Ivanov >> General Director >> LeaderTelecom Ltd >> >> -- >> >> ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. >> >> -- >> ? ?????????, >> ??????? ?????? >> ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" >> >> ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 >> >> URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo >> URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign >> URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS >> >> >> 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): >> Hi All, >> >> IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. >> >> In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New Internet? which it is. >> >> New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. >> >> IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. >> >> Regards >> Ben >> >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan >> Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 >> To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees >> >> Hi Ulf, >> >> As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> Cenk Keylan >> >> >> 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri >> Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 >> 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye >> Tel >> : +90-312-988-0000 >> Direkt >> : +90-312-988-1015 >> Faks >> : +90-312-241-2888 >> http://www.3c1b.com >> info at 3c1b.com >> >> >> >> >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber >> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees >> >> Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources >> ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.? >> >> The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. >> >> Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). >> >> Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. >> >> Best regards, >> Ulf Kieber >> Head of NOC >> green.ch AG >> >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info >> Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 >> To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees >> >> Hi Lu, >> >> I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? >> I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Filip Herman >> filip at kosmozz.be >> >> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be >> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) >> >> >> >> Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng >> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 >> Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees >> >> Hi Colleagues: >> >> Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) >> >> The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. >> >> So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) >> >> So make the format simple: >> >> C=(L/R*100%)*TN >> >> Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. >> >> How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. >> >> -- >> -- >> 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. >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > -- > 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. > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler From erik at bais.name Tue Feb 14 18:46:27 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:46:27 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D5412@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Lu & the people in the community, > A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high property taxes are the same reason. As stated in the reply from Henrik as he put it soo nicely in his reply ... The cake is gone.. there is no cake. IPv4 is gone. Anything that has anything to do with any kind of fee structure based on how many IPv4's you have / own / use / not use / can't get is planning for failure imho. The RIPE NCC is a not for profit membership. This means that we as the members have to pay in order to have the organization do what we like them to do. What they do, is based on the activity plan. And that is also what is agreed (voted on) by the members on the AGM meeting. What we as members need to learn is that a membership of any kind of organization, if it is your political party or your soccer club or your friendly neighborhood IP redistribution friends which we call RIPE NCC, is that it costs money to run such an organization. It is always much more what they do for their funds, than just their core activity. A political party has, for instance to pay for balloons during campaigns or security and the cake and champagne they consume. And a soccer club has to pay the lease for their building, the weekly maintenance of the field and the goal netting, to name a view. But also for the Emergency Medics to be present during games, or pay a preset price to the local Red Cross to do such task. We have endless discussions about IPv4, and how we should charge based on how large a certain LIR is (looking at how many IP's they hold.) We want a fair system for people that want to start and don't make it impossible for all to start in this business. So here is the option one can chew on for the discussion: There is a membership fee, based on (budget minus (the young / new members newer than years times 1500 euro a year)) divided by the total number of members that are older than 2 years. You can play with the sliding scale for the cost for the initial year member, second year member in between 1500 and the longer than 2 years member fee, but that should be it. It is the fairest system that allows for people to grow their business, it has nothing to do with IPv4 / IPv6 ... or how much one has or doesn't have. It is based on the actual required budget/activities (which members vote on via the AGM meeting) And RIPE NCC can't get charged on a fee per IP TAX or something similar. And we can close this discussion every year. Regards, Erik Bais From h.lu at outsideheaven.com Tue Feb 14 18:58:43 2012 From: h.lu at outsideheaven.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:58:43 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D5412@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D5412@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: Hi Erik: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Erik Bais wrote: > Hi Lu & the people in the community, > > > A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to > pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while > they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high > property taxes are the same reason. > > As stated in the reply from Henrik as he put it soo nicely in his reply > ... The cake is gone.. there is no cake. IPv4 is gone. > Anything that has anything to do with any kind of fee structure based on > how many IPv4's you have / own / use / not use / can't get is planning for > failure imho. > > The RIPE NCC is a not for profit membership. This means that we as the > members have to pay in order to have the organization do what we like them > to do. > What they do, is based on the activity plan. And that is also what is > agreed (voted on) by the members on the AGM meeting. > > What we as members need to learn is that a membership of any kind of > organization, if it is your political party or your soccer club or your > friendly neighborhood IP redistribution friends which we call RIPE NCC, is > that it costs money to run such an organization. It is always much more > what they do for their funds, than just their core activity. > A political party has, for instance to pay for balloons during campaigns > or security and the cake and champagne they consume. > And a soccer club has to pay the lease for their building, the weekly > maintenance of the field and the goal netting, to name a view. But also for > the Emergency Medics to be present during games, or pay a preset price to > the local Red Cross to do such task. > > We have endless discussions about IPv4, and how we should charge based on > how large a certain LIR is (looking at how many IP's they hold.) > > We want a fair system for people that want to start and don't make it > impossible for all to start in this business. > > So here is the option one can chew on for the discussion: > > There is a membership fee, based on (budget minus (the young / new members > newer than years times 1500 euro a year)) divided by the total number of > members that are older than 2 years. > > You can play with the sliding scale for the cost for the initial year > member, second year member in between 1500 and the longer than 2 years > member fee, but that should be it. > It is the fairest system that allows for people to grow their business, it > has nothing to do with IPv4 / IPv6 ... or how much one has or doesn't have. > It is based on the actual required budget/activities (which members vote on > via the AGM meeting) > This idea has few problems, if I may point it out: 1. The start of being a member of Ripe NCC has nothing to do with start of a business, Google or Huawei can become Ripe member tomorrow but they are world top 500 companies. 2. some members are only have few people(I know some LIR are less than 5 people company), and some members are national telecom, in whatever standard it is not fair for them to pay the same amount fees. 3. The idea which voting power concerns, it come as same as taxes in the real world, bill gates might paid billions times tax than an average person, but he still only count as one vote while in term of US elections. So as in the Ripe, large members contribute more financially does not imply they should have higher voting power in the organization. > > And RIPE NCC can't get charged on a fee per IP TAX or something similar. > And we can close this discussion every year. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > > > -- 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 Tue Feb 14 19:05:05 2012 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:05:05 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> Message-ID: Hi Henrik: Thanks for your reply. In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now. I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow. However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation. I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin. I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it. So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. With regards. Lu On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Henrik Kramsh?j Solido NOC abuse < noc at solido.net> wrote: > > On 14/02/2012, at 15.05, Lu Heng wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Thanks for everybody's reply, I didn't expect so many replies:) > It is always interesting to hear from people with different perspectives > > I don't respond much, and please don't flame me - even though I try to cut > down on discussions, that IMHO are futile. > > Getting "great ideas" on a whim is often not what happens, getting ideas > that might seem great on a whim happens more often ;-) No offense intended > > > > > > I think the best solution to solve the problem that large amount of > companies holding huge amount of address--is not making Ripe a police force > to check everybody's usage, Ripe NCC shouldn't be doing that as well as > don't have the autherlization to do so. > > A huge waste of time, lets rather consume the rest - the available > space in IPv4 with all addresses would not allow for future growth! > > Burn, burn, burn! Move to IPv6, relax, drink beer, tea, coffee, what you > prefer. > > > > > A very simple solution would be, let the companies using more address to > pay---that can really help reduce their willingness to hold address while > they are not using it. In the real world, many goverment input very high > property taxes are the same reason. > > I am not even going to join these discussions anymore, I think it is a > waste of time to think about new ways to slice the cake, when it is gone > already! > > People still talking about price per IP for ANYTHING (even security > testing which we do!) are nuts, sorry - please don't be offended, but you > are > waisting precious time and resources discussing this. > > and worse having bean-counters designing a "fair proposal" certainly will > end up dividing address space in sub-optimal chunks, and I would predict > this could endanger the internet even more than PIPA/SOPA/ACTA etc. > > > > > If people have to pay to hold, they normally will be more open to > discussion the transfer. > > > > Therefore it will reduce the IP transfer costs in the near future as > well, which will be a great news for companies really need IPs. > > What we need is incentive, and the best incentive is connectivity, make > IPv6 the default, make it simple, make it fast, ... > > it already makes doing addressing plans much easier - "how big a subnet do > we allocate"-questions are gone. > > and to stuff like "our software/hardware/people don't understand IPv6", > sorry - if people are not staying informed about important "news" discussed > since the middle of the 1990s - whose fault is that? People that have dug > themselves into a hole, can keep the hole ... > > Hey, in the best case we will have some stagnant ISP die, great :-) > > > Best regards > > Henrik > > > > > > With regards. > > > > Lu > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM, William Weber < > ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Yes, this - unlike APNIC and iirc ARIN which are normal for-profit > companys (if they really make one is not the point). > > Also, RIPE *should* not judge who are the good guys, not only for > mandate reasons but also because this would not be neutral. > > > > -- > > William > > EDIS GmbH > > > > > > Am 14.02.2012 um 13:06 schrieb Simon Talbot: > > > >> I can?t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. > Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for > profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds > that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. > It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the ?Good Guys? > or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE?s mandate. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> Simon Talbot > >> Chief Engineer > >> Net Solutions Europe > >> T: 020 3161 6001 > >> F: 020 3161 6011 > >> www.nse.co.uk > >> > >> > >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. > >> Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM > >> To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor > >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about > next year's fees > >> > >> >IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 > perhaps ? we all need to > >> > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in > place 6to4 gateways > >> > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to > access the whole > >> > Internet. > >> > >> More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this > and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to > IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of > IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". > >> > >> -- > >> Alexey Ivanov > >> General Director > >> LeaderTelecom Ltd > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ??? ?????? ?????????? [Ticket#2012021401001516] ? ???? ??????. > >> > >> -- > >> ? ?????????, > >> ??????? ?????? > >> ??????????? ???????? ??? "????????????" > >> > >> ???.: 8(495)778-98-51 > >> > >> URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-??????????? Comodo > >> URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-??????????? Verisign > >> URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - ???????? ?????, IP-?????? ? AS > >> > >> > >> 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor ???????(?): > >> Hi All, > >> > >> IMHO, Smaller ISP?s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 > perhaps ? we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big > way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to > allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. > >> > >> In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will > have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all > also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to > plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 ? once > moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has > to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ?New > Internet? which it is. > >> > >> New networks should start on IPV6 ? this way they can be ahead of the > curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of > doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. > >> > >> IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as > IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. > Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 > fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move > ahead on this. > >> > >> Regards > >> Ben > >> > >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan > >> Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 > >> To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss at ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > >> > >> Hi Ulf, > >> > >> As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the > new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP?s have millions of > unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple > argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back > and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is > asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block > as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block > they are keeping in hand. > >> > >> Have a nice day, > >> > >> Cenk Keylan > >> > >> > >> 3C1B Telekom?nikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri > >> Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eski?ehir Yolu 9.km No:266 > >> 06800 ?ankaya Ankara Turkiye > >> Tel > >> : +90-312-988-0000 > >> Direkt > >> : +90-312-988-1015 > >> Faks > >> : +90-312-241-2888 > >> http://www.3c1b.com > >> info at 3c1b.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM > >> To: members-discuss at ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > >> > >> Have a look at > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resources > >> ?IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not > for sale.? > >> > >> The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied > registration services by the RIPE NCC. > >> > >> Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable > ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands > will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). > >> > >> Since I?m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request > to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, > one fee; budget divided by the number of members. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Ulf Kieber > >> Head of NOC > >> green.ch AG > >> > >> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info > >> Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 > >> To: Lu Heng; members-discuss at ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > >> > >> Hi Lu, > >> > >> I was thinking the same. Why shouldn?t we all be billed for the amount > we are using and may?be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and > not used? > >> I?ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on > Billing matters. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Filip Herman > >> filip at kosmozz.be > >> > >> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be > >> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be) > >> > >> > >> > >> Van: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Lu Heng > >> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 > >> Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net > >> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees > >> > >> Hi Colleagues: > >> > >> Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will > almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the > membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly > IPv4) > >> > >> The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the > total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. > >> > >> So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount > address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total > need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) > >> > >> So make the format simple: > >> > >> C=(L/R*100%)*TN > >> > >> Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based > on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply > as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories > rather than real fair solutions. > >> > >> How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> 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. > >> ---- > >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >> > >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > -- > Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix > hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com > +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH > http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- -- 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 erik at bais.name Tue Feb 14 19:43:05 2012 From: erik at bais.name (Erik Bais) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:43:05 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D5412@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Message-ID: <3D7F7C92CA8EEF458B7AC7BACD7D619102F1946D5414@EXVS002.netsourcing.lan> Hi Lu, >This idea has few problems, if I may point it out: >1. The start of being a member of Ripe NCC has nothing to do with start of a business, Google or Huawei can become Ripe member tomorrow but they are world top 500 companies. However the majority of the members are not the size of Google or Huawei and for them this would allow them grow to become the next Facebook or Google. And even if some company is having a benefit of being a large established company and being 'sponsored' at the start of their application period. I don't have a problem with that. Equal rules apply to everyone. Even if Huawei or Google with plenty of cash apply. That is where it is different from a commercial company where you could have some kind of differentiation based on who you sell to. >2. some members are only have few people(I know some LIR are less than 5 people company), and some members are national telecom, in whatever standard it is not fair for them to pay the same amount fees. My company has 1 FTE, it is started in 2010 and this year it was already rated as a LIR size medium. Is that fair ? HELL YES !! Would I like to cut the cost of 2500 euro back to 1500 euro ? Sure, who wouldn't, but if that means that the current activities are going to be cut in half, I would rather pay 3000 a year to avoid that. >3. The idea which voting power concerns, it come as same as taxes in the real world, bill gates might paid billions times tax than an average person, but he still only count as one vote while in term of US elections. > So as in the Ripe, large members contribute more financially does not imply they should have higher voting power in the organization. I'm sorry, but as a membership .. it is 1 LIR/member, 1 vote.. a larger LIR member doesn't give you more voting power or more votes. It is the majority that rules. The comment that I made on taxes, was about the RIPE NCC not being charged by the Dutch IRS (Belastingdienst) if they avoid a charging schema which charges per IP address. (or something similar..) Regards, Erik From noc at solido.net Tue Feb 14 19:45:31 2012 From: noc at solido.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Henrik_Kramsh=F8j_Solido_NOC_abuse?=) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:45:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> Message-ID: <8D4C5DC3-C345-486D-8F62-71F8BC1E1554@solido.net> On 14/02/2012, at 19.05, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Henrik: Hi All > > Thanks for your reply. > > In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now. Theory is practice now, don't ignore it > > I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow. > > However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation. Neither have I, I decided actually that we should become LIR (dk.solidonetworks) just recently. > > I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin. > > I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it. > > So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet IPv4 is not NEED, we have had IPv4 for lots of years, we have tools for browsing the internet through proxies etc. and the 90% percent of what people do and use, most "regular internet users" are using very few resources - like facebook, youtube, gmail, linkedin etc. The main sites and services are rapidly moving to IPv6, Akamai for instance just days ago said on twitter #v6World - Christian Kaufmann #Akamai: We now have 954 #IPv6 BGP sessions, over 1/4 of total #IPv4 sessions. Mobile devices are taking over the internet, more devices will be mobile than cabled, so IF your business depends on some obscure hardware devices that does not support IPv6 - like various DSL devices in Denmark for instance, they are DYING and DYING fast. I hope the best for you and your business plans, I cannot fathom though what business REQUIRES IPv4 for the foreseeable future - but my guess - it will DIE and be replaced by companies that understand the need for connectivity with the rest of the world - you know, IPv6 ;-) Best regards Henrik PS I wrote my thesis about IPv6 at diku.dk in 2002 and did my first ping6 on AIX in the 1990s. So yes, I am quite biased towards IPv6 :-) PPS I have also been in Africa and even though they ran oooold Windows versions they were further into the future with 3G data etc. Do NOT make the assumption that hardware will not be replaced if it does not live up to user expectations anymore. -- Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Feb 14 19:53:51 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <8D4C5DC3-C345-486D-8F62-71F8BC1E1554@solido.net> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> <8D4C5DC3-C345-486D-8F62-71F8BC1E1554@solido.net> Message-ID: >> So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. > Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet well we -need- ipv4 to work untill google, facebook and youtube (as well as anyone else that chooses to remain relevant ;) have AAAA records on their normal www entries... after that, we no longer care for ipv4... basically... and i believe they all want to make the final move in june this year and turn it on permanently, so after that, bye bye ipv4... if ppl don't migrate their stuff, that's their problem, main priority for eyeball networks: google, facebook, twitter, etc works, if "thegrocerystoreonthecorner.co.uk' doesn't work, too bad. so yes, google, do your thing.. From lir at lanto.it Tue Feb 14 20:08:45 2012 From: lir at lanto.it (LIR) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:08:45 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees In-Reply-To: <8D4C5DC3-C345-486D-8F62-71F8BC1E1554@solido.net> References: <3D9FFE74-769A-4A53-8457-20229237B63A@edisglobal.com> <88085B85-E893-4E31-9675-A77F1189D4EC@solido.net> <8D4C5DC3-C345-486D-8F62-71F8BC1E1554@solido.net> Message-ID: <4F3AB13D.7050308@lanto.it> Strange situation. If IPv4 is dead, not important, to be forgotten soon, which is the problem to pay more if you use a lot of IPv4 resources? For sure is not your problem, as all of you is going to leave IPv4. So, please, make a reasonable pricing based on fixed fee + usage of every resource. More resource you use (IPv6, IPv4, IPv7, IPv8) more you pay. Exactly like water, gas, trash, etc. I agree on a base fee around 800-1.000 EUR, adding costs of consumed resources (new entries pay the same as old entries). Regards, Tonino Il 14/02/2012 19:45, Henrik Kramsh?j Solido NOC abuse ha scritto: > On 14/02/2012, at 19.05, Lu Heng wrote: > >> Hi Henrik: > Hi All > >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> In theory, you are absolute right, we really should forgot the IPv4 and move to the IPv6 now. > Theory is practice now, don't ignore it >> I personally really like to see it happen even just tomorrow. >> >> However, in real world, we as a small company don't have control of situation. > Neither have I, I decided actually that we should become LIR (dk.solidonetworks) just recently. > >> I can not tell you what business we really in, but what I can tell is, it is really not up to us if we want to throw IPv4 into the trash bin. >> >> I believe it is goes the same for most people here, internet is inter-connected, nobody can move to IPv6 alone, we need each other to move forward to it. >> >> So at least for the moment and the forcastable future, we will still in need of IPv4, so as many of other colleagues. > Not really, what we NEED is IPv6 - IPv4 will just hang around more and more, until it gets to annoying. Nobody NEEDS IPv4, perhaps they need to LIVE WITH IPv4 for some time. its like saying you NEED wired Ethernet to be on the internet > > IPv4 is not NEED, we have had IPv4 for lots of years, we have tools for browsing the internet through proxies etc. and the 90% percent of what people do and use, most "regular internet users" are using very few resources - like facebook, youtube, gmail, linkedin etc. > > The main sites and services are rapidly moving to IPv6, Akamai for instance just days ago said on twitter > #v6World - Christian Kaufmann #Akamai: We now have 954 #IPv6 BGP sessions, over 1/4 of total #IPv4 sessions. > > Mobile devices are taking over the internet, more devices will be mobile than cabled, so IF your business depends on some obscure hardware devices that does not support IPv6 - like various DSL devices in Denmark for instance, they are DYING and DYING fast. > > I hope the best for you and your business plans, I cannot fathom though what business REQUIRES IPv4 for the foreseeable future - but my guess - it will DIE and be replaced by companies that understand the need for connectivity with the rest of the world - you know, IPv6 ;-) > > Best regards > > Henrik > > PS I wrote my thesis about IPv6 at diku.dk in 2002 and did my first ping6 on AIX in the 1990s. So yes, I am quite biased towards IPv6 :-) > > PPS I have also been in Africa and even though they ran oooold Windows versions they were further into the future with 3G data etc. Do NOT make the assumption that hardware will not be replaced if it does not live up to user expectations anymore. > > > -- > Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix > hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com > +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH > http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From Bill.lewis at kijoma.co.uk Tue Feb 14 22:05:34 2012 From: Bill.lewis at kijoma.co.uk (Bill Lewis) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:34 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the IP4 pool is very low...but... We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to bridge this gap. The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and therefore having to resort to renting space privately? Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to increase our fees, is this why? cheers Bill uk.kijoma From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 00:39:54 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <20120214215042.C628A104409B@smtp.cb3rob.net> References: <20120214215042.C628A104409B@smtp.cb3rob.net> Message-ID: can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run out now? how much is left.. etc :P and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare for it :P On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > > > cheers > > Bill > uk.kijoma > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 00:51:00 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: References: <20120214215042.C628A104409B@smtp.cb3rob.net> Message-ID: oh wait, according to the graph http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph there should still be some left :P (which then raises the question why you didn't get it ;) (not to mention 21,22,26/8 (milnet/dod/etc) and 244 and up (old e-class networks) still... ppl better start working on this "ipv6 thing"... -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run > out now? how much is left.. etc :P > > and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a > reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default > > (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) > > it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare > for it :P > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > >> hi, >> >> We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the >> IP4 pool is very low...but... >> >> We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy >> as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed >> with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to >> bridge this gap. >> >> The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear >> that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space >> from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. >> >> Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to >> gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and >> therefore having to resort to renting space privately? >> >> Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a >> point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and >> then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional >> allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is >> when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. >> >> Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to >> being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to >> increase our fees, is this why? >> >> >> cheers >> >> Bill >> uk.kijoma >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From asouzbekov at megacom.kg Wed Feb 15 04:57:20 2012 From: asouzbekov at megacom.kg (Azamat Soyuzbekov) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:57:20 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic Message-ID: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A0E2@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe? maintainer who block traffic mntner: KNIC-MNT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Wed Feb 15 08:53:25 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:53:25 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A0E2@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A0E2@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> Message-ID: <83605842-2CE1-42CF-8866-6D2D2495CF84@edisglobal.com> What do you mean exactly? do they filter your announce? can you provide a specific prefix with this issue? what is your relation to them? (peer, transit customer etc.) Transit issues are not an ripe issue, if you have PI (either v6 or v4) you even directly agreed that the space may not be routeable globally.... You are best with writing to them or their upstream to adjust the prefix filters they have in place. William Weber RIPE Handle: WW -- EDIS GmbH NOC Graz, Austria Sent from my iPhone Am 15.02.2012 um 04:57 schrieb Azamat Soyuzbekov : > I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe? > > maintainer who block traffic > mntner: KNIC-MNT > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com Wed Feb 15 08:58:36 2012 From: ripe-members-discussion at edisglobal.com (William Weber) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:58:36 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: References: <20120214215042.C628A104409B@smtp.cb3rob.net> Message-ID: <765ADECB-2978-46C0-BE83-B891B88FF18F@edisglobal.com> No, there is plenty of v4 left for now - we easily got another /21 allocated the other day. Google does have v6, facebook too - just not by default. I talked with some of them and other content providers at RIPE meeting in Vienna and will write a further explanaition for their motives to not have it by default on in a few minutes when im at my office. William Weber EDIS GmbH NOC Graz, Austria Sent from my iPhone Am 15.02.2012 um 00:39 schrieb Sven Olaf Kamphuis : > can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run > out now? how much is left.. etc :P > > and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a > reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default > > (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) > > it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare > for it :P > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > >> hi, >> >> We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the >> IP4 pool is very low...but... >> >> We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy >> as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed >> with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to >> bridge this gap. >> >> The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear >> that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space >> from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. >> >> Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to >> gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and >> therefore having to resort to renting space privately? >> >> Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a >> point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and >> then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional >> allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is >> when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. >> >> Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to >> being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to >> increase our fees, is this why? >> >> >> cheers >> >> Bill >> uk.kijoma >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From mark at tuxis.nl Wed Feb 15 09:04:56 2012 From: mark at tuxis.nl (Mark Schouten) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:04:56 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329293096.4f3b67284a9b2@www.hyperdesktop.nl> Hi, Op Woensdag, 15-02-2012 om 0:39 schreef Sven Olaf Kamphuis: > can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run > out now? how much is left.. etc :P > > and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a > reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default Have a look at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1. You'll see that most big sites will enable ipv6 on the 6'th of June, 2012. -- Dit bericht is verzonden via https://www.hyperdesktop.nl/. Alles, overal! Mark Schouten | Tuxis Internet Engineering KvK: 09218193 | http://www.tuxis.nl/ T: 0318 200208 | info at tuxis.nl M: 06 53463918 | mark at tuxis.nl > (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) > > it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare > for it :P > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > > > hi, > > > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > > bridge this gap. > > > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > > increase our fees, is this why? > > > > > > cheers > > > > Bill > > uk.kijoma > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".. From here, you can add or remove addresses. From kurtis at netnod.se Wed Feb 15 09:34:11 2012 From: kurtis at netnod.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:34:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A0E2@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A0E2@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> Message-ID: <3C81D70C-38A1-434C-B45A-467881D7E487@netnod.se> On 15 feb 2012, at 04:57, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: > I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe? > Transit is not provided by default, but is something that you need to come to an agreement with the providers you want to receive transit from. Normally this is done by buying transit services from another operator. Best regards, - kurtis - --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO kurtis at netnod.se, Direct: +46-8-562 860 11, Switch: +46-8-562 860 00 Franz?ngatan 5 | SE-112 51 Stockholm | Sweden From slz at baycix.de Wed Feb 15 09:25:26 2012 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:25:26 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <20120214214257.A1D592A016C@mx00.baycix.de> References: <20120214214257.A1D592A016C@mx00.baycix.de> Message-ID: Hi, Am 14.02.2012 um 22:05 schrieb Bill Lewis: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > i'm a little unclear about what you're asking for here - if you handed in a request for a subsequent IPv4 allocation, and it was denied, then you most certainly got an explanation about the reasons. Probably it's just my english skills being impaired by the early morning and lack of coffee, but it don't see you mentioning WHY you couldn't get another allocation. Most likely you just didn't get your documentation right or something, since at this point it should be no problem to get another IPv4 allocation according to the current policy if you get the bureaucracy right. Just talk to the NCC, they certainly will explain everything. We can't really help you here due to lack of information about your situation. PROBABLY the problem is the space you "rented", so it looks like you don't need as much additional space as you're requesting because you already have that. Or you didn't register this stuff right and the NCC doesn't like you anymore for being a bad boy violating policy... But that's just a wild guess. Only the IPRAs can explain. We don't know your request or your ticket details. There is still some bits an pieces left in the RIPE IPv4 Pool. If you can show you need some more and prove your needs according to the current policy, you'll get some of the cake. P.S.: Nice to see you already got an IPv6 allocation - just push your partners and vendors a little more towards it. If they don't see the need for IPv6 at this point of time, you seriously should consider looking for other vendors and partners - next time you come back asking for another IPv4 allocation, it really might be too late. -- Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect From asouzbekov at megacom.kg Wed Feb 15 10:08:24 2012 From: asouzbekov at megacom.kg (Azamat Soyuzbekov) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:08:24 +0600 Subject: [members-discuss] FW: Problem transit traffic Message-ID: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. On the request is silent and does not meet. From noc at solido.net Wed Feb 15 10:26:14 2012 From: noc at solido.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Henrik_Kramsh=F8j_Solido_NOC_abuse?=) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:26:14 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> Message-ID: <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: > > Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: > *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i > * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i > by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. > 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. > On the request is silent and does not meet. Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by email is so annoying and slow. Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess most of the RIPE participants don't have english as a native language anyway) So, from above I guess: you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with AS8449 Join Venture Company "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC According to RIPE RIS you have these: Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 07:58:53 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 16:55:04 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 08:43:07 UTC W RIPE NCC 101 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:10 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:31:32 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 The route you mention route: 2.16.56.0/23 descr: Akamai Technologies origin: AS20940 and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 BTW I see these on some of my routers as: 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a good start Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" and " Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. On the request is silent and does not meet. " Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching other destinations? Do other have problems reaching you? Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and traceroutes to known destinations that should work. - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes More information is need to help you :-) BTW I found most of this on: http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we can get to the matter of the problem :-) Best regards Henrik -- Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler From mike at theinternet.org.uk Wed Feb 15 12:15:54 2012 From: mike at theinternet.org.uk (Mike Hollowell) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:15:54 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <1329293096.4f3b67284a9b2@www.hyperdesktop.nl> References: <1329293096.4f3b67284a9b2@www.hyperdesktop.nl> Message-ID: <1329304554.3209.29.camel@wsk1-lm> Hi On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 09:04 +0100, Mark Schouten wrote: > Hi, > > Op Woensdag, 15-02-2012 om 0:39 schreef Sven Olaf Kamphuis: > > can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run > > out now? how much is left.. etc :P > > > > and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a > > reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default > > Have a look at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1. You'll see that most big sites will enable ipv6 on the 6'th of June, 2012. > Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. Mike From mark at tuxis.nl Wed Feb 15 12:33:47 2012 From: mark at tuxis.nl (Mark Schouten) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:33:47 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <1329304554.3209.29.camel@wsk1-lm> References: <1329304554.3209.29.camel@wsk1-lm> Message-ID: <1329305627.4f3b981b3011c@www.hyperdesktop.nl> Hi, Op Woensdag, 15-02-2012 om 12:15 schreef Mike Hollowell: > > Have a look at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/participants/?q=1. You'll see that most big sites will enable ipv6 on the 6'th of June, 2012. > > > > Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. I'd say that the stats on how much ipv4 is left should be inspiring enough for you. -- Dit bericht is verzonden via https://www.hyperdesktop.nl/. Alles, overal! Mark Schouten | Tuxis Internet Engineering KvK: 09218193 | http://www.tuxis.nl/ T: 0318 200208 | info at tuxis.nl M: 06 53463918 | mark at tuxis.nl From munis at tajnet.tj Wed Feb 15 14:44:55 2012 From: munis at tajnet.tj (Gairat Ismoilzoda) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:44:55 +0500 (TJT) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> Message-ID: <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Dear , I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, blogspot.com, livejournal.com etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? > > On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: > >> >> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i >> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. >> On the request is silent and does not meet. > > Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by email is so annoying and > slow. > Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess most of the RIPE participants > don't have english as a native language anyway) > > So, from above I guess: > > you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with AS8449 Join Venture Company > "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom > > According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: > 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > > According to RIPE RIS you have these: > Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing > 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 07:58:53 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 > 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 16:55:04 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 > 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 08:43:07 UTC W RIPE NCC 101 > 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:10 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 > 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 > 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:31:32 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 > 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 > > > The route you mention > route: 2.16.56.0/23 > descr: Akamai Technologies > origin: AS20940 > and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 > > BTW I see these on some of my routers as: > 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 > AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 > [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 > AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I > > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 > > 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 > AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 > [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 > AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 > So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a good start > > Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. > > "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and > if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" > > and > " > Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: > *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i > * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i > by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. > 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. > On the request is silent and does not meet. > " > > Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching other destinations? > Do other have problems reaching you? > > Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? > > Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? > > Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and traceroutes to known > destinations that should work. > - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes > > More information is need to help you :-) > > > > BTW I found most of this on: > http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 > http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 > > > Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we can get to the matter of the > problem :-) > > > Best regards > > Henrik > > -- > Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix > hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com > +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH > http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove > addresses. > -- Best regards, Ismoilov Gairatjon ATK Telecomm Technology Internet Service Provider 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 Mob.: (992 93)5002202 From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 15:13:52 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:13:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just filter incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes and then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the one breaking things. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: > Dear , I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, blogspot.com, livejournal.com etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? > > On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: > >> >> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i >> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. >> On the request is silent and does not meet. > > Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by email is so annoying and > slow. > Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess most of the RIPE participants > don't have english as a native language anyway) > > So, from above I guess: > > you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with AS8449 Join Venture Company > "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom > > According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: > 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC > > According to RIPE RIS you have these: > Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing > 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 07:58:53 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 > 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 16:55:04 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 > 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 08:43:07 UTC W RIPE NCC 101 > 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:10 UTC W RIPE NCC 95 > 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 > 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:31:32 UTC W RIPE NCC 2 > 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 UTC W RIPE NCC 103 > > > The route you mention > route: 2.16.56.0/23 > descr: Akamai Technologies > origin: AS20940 > and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 > > BTW I see these on some of my routers as: > 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 > AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 > [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 > AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I > > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 > > 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 > AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 > [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 > AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I > > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 > So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a good start > > Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. > > "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and > if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" > > and > " > Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: > *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i > * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i > by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. > 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. > On the request is silent and does not meet. > " > > Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching other destinations? > Do other have problems reaching you? > > Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? > > Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? > > Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and traceroutes to known > destinations that should work. > - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes > > More information is need to help you :-) > > > > BTW I found most of this on: > http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 > http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 > > > Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we can get to the matter of the > problem :-) > > > Best regards > > Henrik > > -- > Henrik Lund Kramsh?j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix > hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com > +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH > http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler > > > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove > addresses. > -- Best regards, Ismoilov Gairatjon ATK Telecomm Technology Internet Service Provider 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 Mob.: (992 93)5002202 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 15:22:05 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: neighbor 1.2.3.4 filter-list incoming-transits in (on each of your neighbors) ... ip as-path access-list incoming-transits deny _9198_ ip as-path access-list incoming-transits permit _9198$ ... should basically prevent your routers from sending outgoing traffic over any path that contains 9198, yet allowing 9198's own prefixes (as you do want to reach their customers i guess ;) but just make sure its them (9198) that are "broken" (and that you have a full table on the other one as well ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just filter > incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes and > then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) > > alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a > significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the one > breaking things. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: > >> Dear , > I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, > blogspot.com, livejournal.com > etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? >> >> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: >> >>> >>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 >>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that >>> the 9198 block sites. >>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >> >> Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by >> email is so annoying and >> slow. >> Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess most of >> the RIPE participants >> don't have english as a native language anyway) >> >> So, from above I guess: >> >> you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with AS8449 >> Join Venture Company >> "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom >> >> According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: >> 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC >> 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >> 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC >> 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >> 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >> >> According to RIPE RIS you have these: >> Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing >> 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 07:58:53 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >> 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 16:55:04 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >> 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 08:43:07 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 101 >> 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:10 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >> 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >> 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:31:32 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >> 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 >> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >> >> >> The route you mention >> route: 2.16.56.0/23 >> descr: Akamai Technologies >> origin: AS20940 >> and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 >> >> BTW I see these on some of my routers as: >> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 >> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >> > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 >> [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 >> AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I >> > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 >> >> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 >> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >> > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 >> [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 >> AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I >> > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 >> So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a good >> start >> >> Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. >> >> "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is >> what rules they break, and >> if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" >> >> and >> " >> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 >> 4436 20940 20940 i >> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 >> 3549 20940 20940 i >> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the >> 9198 block sites. >> On the request is silent and does not meet. >> " >> >> Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching other >> destinations? >> Do other have problems reaching you? >> >> Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? >> >> Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? >> >> Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and >> traceroutes to known >> destinations that should work. >> - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes >> >> More information is need to help you :-) >> >> >> >> BTW I found most of this on: >> http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 >> http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 >> >> >> Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we can >> get to the matter of the >> problem :-) >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Henrik >> >> -- >> Henrik Lund Kramsh??j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix >> hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com >> +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH >> http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove >> addresses. >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Ismoilov Gairatjon > ATK Telecomm Technology > Internet Service Provider > 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 > tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 > Mob.: (992 93)5002202 > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general > page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, > you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 15:25:19 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:25:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: ehm... this btw only fixes the problem if they firewall/drop traffic with the destination addresses of those prefixes (gmail/etc) (it stops your router from sending traffic over them) it doesn't prevent them from dropping traffic with the -source- address of their blocked ranges, in that case, you simply have to drop the bgp session that would result in your prefixes being transitted by them alltogether (Can't filter what as-paths YOUR routes run over, besides dropping the entire sessions of parties that transit them over people you don't like ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > neighbor 1.2.3.4 filter-list incoming-transits in > > (on each of your neighbors) > ... > > ip as-path access-list incoming-transits deny _9198_ > ip as-path access-list incoming-transits permit _9198$ > ... > > > should basically prevent your routers from sending outgoing traffic over any > path that contains 9198, yet allowing 9198's own prefixes (as you do want to > reach their customers i guess ;) but just make sure its them (9198) that are > "broken" (and that you have a full table on the other one as well ;) > > > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just filter >> incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes and >> then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) >> >> alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a >> significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the >> one breaking things. >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: >> >>> Dear , >> I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, >> blogspot.com, livejournal.com >> etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? >>> >>> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 >>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that >>>> the 9198 block sites. >>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>> >>> Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by >>> email is so annoying and >>> slow. >>> Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess most >>> of the RIPE participants >>> don't have english as a native language anyway) >>> >>> So, from above I guess: >>> >>> you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with >>> AS8449 Join Venture Company >>> "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom >>> >>> According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: >>> 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> >>> According to RIPE RIS you have these: >>> Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing >>> 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 07:58:53 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>> 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 16:55:04 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>> 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 08:43:07 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 101 >>> 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:10 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>> 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>> 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:31:32 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>> 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 21:34:08 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>> >>> >>> The route you mention >>> route: 2.16.56.0/23 >>> descr: Akamai Technologies >>> origin: AS20940 >>> and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 >>> >>> BTW I see these on some of my routers as: >>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 >>> [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 >>> AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I >>> > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>> >>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 >>> [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>> So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a good >>> start >>> >>> Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. >>> >>> "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is >>> what rules they break, and >>> if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" >>> >>> and >>> " >>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 >>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that >>> the 9198 block sites. >>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>> " >>> >>> Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching >>> other destinations? >>> Do other have problems reaching you? >>> >>> Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? >>> >>> Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? >>> >>> Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and >>> traceroutes to known >>> destinations that should work. >>> - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes >>> >>> More information is need to help you :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW I found most of this on: >>> http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 >>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 >>> >>> >>> Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we can >>> get to the matter of the >>> problem :-) >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Henrik >>> >>> -- >>> Henrik Lund Kramsh??j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix >>> hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com >>> +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH >>> http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, you can add or remove >>> addresses. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Ismoilov Gairatjon >> ATK Telecomm Technology >> Internet Service Provider >> 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 >> tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 >> Mob.: (992 93)5002202 >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 15:41:35 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Chris Wilson wrote: > > No! > > What if there are single-homed networks behind 9198, or if your other full > table provider chooses 9198 routes as well? then i guess it's time for 9198 to learn not to relay prefixes and then not relay the packets for them :P nothin creates as much force on a telco as complaining customers *grin* (+/- 15 euros per support call or something ;) > Given what you're trying to achieve, you cannot ignore these advertisements, > but need to make them less preferable when compared with other routes to the > same prefix range. true, but that's slightly more complicated. > > > > Chris > > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> >> neighbor 1.2.3.4 filter-list incoming-transits in >> >> (on each of your neighbors) >> ... >> >> ip as-path access-list incoming-transits deny _9198_ >> ip as-path access-list incoming-transits permit _9198$ >> ... >> >> >> should basically prevent your routers from sending outgoing traffic over >> any path that contains 9198, yet allowing 9198's own prefixes (as you do >> want to reach their customers i guess ;) but just make sure its them >> (9198) that are "broken" (and that you have a full table on the other one >> as well ;) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >>> as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just >> filter >>> incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes >> and >>> then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) >>> >>> alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a >>> significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the >> one >>> breaking things. >>> >>> -- >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >>> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >>> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >>> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >>> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >>> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >>> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> >>> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >>> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >>> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >>> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: >>> >>>> Dear , >>> I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, >>> blogspot.com, livejournal.com >>> etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? >>>> >>>> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 >> 2914 >>>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>>>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining >> that >>>>> the 9198 block sites. >>>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>>> >>>> Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by >> >>>> email is so annoying and >>>> slow. >>>> Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess >> most of >>>> the RIPE participants >>>> don't have english as a native language anyway) >>>> >>>> So, from above I guess: >>>> >>>> you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with >> AS8449 >>>> Join Venture Company >>>> "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom >>>> >>>> According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: >>>> 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> >>>> According to RIPE RIS you have these: >>>> Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing >>>> 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 >> 07:58:53 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>>> 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 >> 16:55:04 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>>> 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 >> 08:43:07 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 101 >>>> 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:10 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>>> 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:08 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>>> 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:31:32 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>>> 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:08 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>>> >>>> >>>> The route you mention >>>> route: 2.16.56.0/23 >>>> descr: Akamai Technologies >>>> origin: AS20940 >>>> and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 >>>> >>>> BTW I see these on some of my routers as: >>>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 >>>> [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 >>>> AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I >>>> > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>>> >>>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 >>>> [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>>> So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a >> good >>>> start >>>> >>>> Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. >>>> >>>> "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is >> >>>> what rules they break, and >>>> if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" >>>> >>>> and >>>> " >>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 >> 2914 >>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >> 20485 >>>> 3549 20940 20940 i >>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that >> the >>>> 9198 block sites. >>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>>> " >>>> >>>> Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching >> other >>>> destinations? >>>> Do other have problems reaching you? >>>> >>>> Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? >>>> >>>> Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? >>>> >>>> Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and >>>> traceroutes to known >>>> destinations that should work. >>>> - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes >>>> >>>> More information is need to help you :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW I found most of this on: >>>> http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 >>>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 >>>> >>>> >>>> Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we >> can >>>> get to the matter of the >>>> problem :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Henrik >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henrik Lund Kramsh??j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix >>>> hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com >>>> +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH >>>> http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>>> general page: >>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>>> >>>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>>> here, you can add or remove >>>> addresses. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Ismoilov Gairatjon >>> ATK Telecomm Technology >>> Internet Service Provider >>> 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 >>> tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 >>> Mob.: (992 93)5002202 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Wed Feb 15 15:52:28 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: 9198 smells like a potential pakistan telecom vs youtube 2.0 case anyway (just that the damage is limited to people "close to them" in terms of asn-hops) ppl that relay bgp announcements but not the corresponding traffic (unmodified even, except for ttl and checksum) break the internet. if they want to firewall stuff (or otherwise interfere with the content of individual packets), they should do it a layer -behind- any routers that pass on prefixes that are not theirs to other multihomed asn's On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Chris Wilson wrote: > > No! > > What if there are single-homed networks behind 9198, or if your other full > table provider chooses 9198 routes as well? > > Given what you're trying to achieve, you cannot ignore these advertisements, > but need to make them less preferable when compared with other routes to the > same prefix range. > > > > Chris > > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> >> neighbor 1.2.3.4 filter-list incoming-transits in >> >> (on each of your neighbors) >> ... >> >> ip as-path access-list incoming-transits deny _9198_ >> ip as-path access-list incoming-transits permit _9198$ >> ... >> >> >> should basically prevent your routers from sending outgoing traffic over >> any path that contains 9198, yet allowing 9198's own prefixes (as you do >> want to reach their customers i guess ;) but just make sure its them >> (9198) that are "broken" (and that you have a full table on the other one >> as well ;) >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >>> as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just >> filter >>> incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes >> and >>> then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) >>> >>> alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a >>> significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the >> one >>> breaking things. >>> >>> -- >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >>> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >>> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >>> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >>> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >>> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >>> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >>> >> ========================================================================= >>> >>> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >>> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >>> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >>> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: >>> >>>> Dear , >>> I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, >>> blogspot.com, livejournal.com >>> etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? >>>> >>>> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 >> 2914 >>>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>>>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining >> that >>>>> the 9198 block sites. >>>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>>> >>>> Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by >> >>>> email is so annoying and >>>> slow. >>>> Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess >> most of >>>> the RIPE participants >>>> don't have english as a native language anyway) >>>> >>>> So, from above I guess: >>>> >>>> you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with >> AS8449 >>>> Join Venture Company >>>> "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom >>>> >>>> According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: >>>> 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>>> >>>> According to RIPE RIS you have these: >>>> Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing >>>> 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 >> 07:58:53 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>>> 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 >> 16:55:04 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>>> 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 >> 08:43:07 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 101 >>>> 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:10 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>>> 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:08 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>>> 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:31:32 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>>> 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 >> 21:34:08 >>>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>>> >>>> >>>> The route you mention >>>> route: 2.16.56.0/23 >>>> descr: Akamai Technologies >>>> origin: AS20940 >>>> and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 >>>> >>>> BTW I see these on some of my routers as: >>>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 >>>> [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 >>>> AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I >>>> > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>>> >>>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 >>>> [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 >>>> AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I >>>> > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>>> So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a >> good >>>> start >>>> >>>> Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. >>>> >>>> "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is >> >>>> what rules they break, and >>>> if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" >>>> >>>> and >>>> " >>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 >> 2914 >>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >> 20485 >>>> 3549 20940 20940 i >>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that >> the >>>> 9198 block sites. >>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>>> " >>>> >>>> Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching >> other >>>> destinations? >>>> Do other have problems reaching you? >>>> >>>> Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? >>>> >>>> Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? >>>> >>>> Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and >>>> traceroutes to known >>>> destinations that should work. >>>> - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes >>>> >>>> More information is need to help you :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW I found most of this on: >>>> http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 >>>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 >>>> >>>> >>>> Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we >> can >>>> get to the matter of the >>>> problem :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Henrik >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Henrik Lund Kramsh??j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix >>>> hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com >>>> +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH >>>> http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>>> general page: >>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>>> >>>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>>> here, you can add or remove >>>> addresses. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Ismoilov Gairatjon >>> ATK Telecomm Technology >>> Internet Service Provider >>> 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 >>> tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 >>> Mob.: (992 93)5002202 >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general >>> page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, >>> you can add or remove addresses. > From chris at jakdaw.org Wed Feb 15 15:35:27 2012 From: chris at jakdaw.org (Chris Wilson) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:35:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [members-discuss] Problem transit traffic In-Reply-To: References: <07820CA06A58D149B7404D0F1CA04DA5590C60A19F@BTC-BL1-EX2.megacom.local> <9AD58CDE-ECDE-4D41-9FEB-2876715FF21A@solido.net> <2462.95.142.80.80.1329313495.squirrel@www.mail.tajnet.com> Message-ID: No! What if there are single-homed networks behind 9198, or if your other full table provider chooses 9198 routes as well? Given what you're trying to achieve, you cannot ignore these advertisements, but need to make them less preferable when compared with other routes to the same prefix range. Chris On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > > neighbor 1.2.3.4 filter-list incoming-transits in > > (on each of your neighbors) > ... > > ip as-path access-list incoming-transits deny _9198_ > ip as-path access-list incoming-transits permit _9198$ > ... > > > should basically prevent your routers from sending outgoing traffic over > any path that contains 9198, yet allowing 9198's own prefixes (as you do > want to reach their customers i guess ;) but just make sure its them > (9198) that are "broken" (and that you have a full table on the other one > as well ;) > > > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> as he sees 2 routes, only one of which contains 9198, he could just > filter >> incoming routes which contain 9198 if that's the party sending prefixes > and >> then not relaying the traffic towards them (which kinda breaks things ;) >> >> alternatively just drop the 12997 neighbor sesssion alltogether, if a >> significant number of routes they give you go over 9198, and 9198 is the > one >> breaking things. >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> > ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net >> > ========================================================================= >> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> > ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Gairat Ismoilzoda wrote: >> >>> Dear , >> I think he want to say, the Kazakhtelecomm(AS9198) block gmail.com, >> blogspot.com, livejournal.com >> etc. Can the RIPE to solve this problem? >>> >>> On 15/02/2012, at 10.08, Azamat Soyuzbekov wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 > 2914 >>>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 >>>> 20485 3549 20940 20940 i >>>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining > that >>>> the 9198 block sites. >>>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>> >>> Please try explaining with more words, having to do an interrogation by > >>> email is so annoying and >>> slow. >>> Even if your english skills are less than perfect, try :-) (I guess > most of >>> the RIPE participants >>> don't have english as a native language anyway) >>> >>> So, from above I guess: >>> >>> you are AS50223 Alfa Telecom CJSC located in Kyrgyzstan peering with > AS8449 >>> Join Venture Company >>> "ElCat" and AS12997 JSC Kyrgyztelecom >>> >>> According to bgp.he.net you announce these prefixes: >>> 46.251.192.0/19 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 46.251.200.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.224.0/21 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.224.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> 109.71.228.0/22 Alfa Telecom CJSC >>> >>> According to RIPE RIS you have these: >>> Prefix Size Last seen First seen Whois Registry Peers seeing >>> 46.251.200.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-19 > 07:58:53 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>> 109.71.228.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-04-30 > 16:55:04 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>> 109.71.228.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2012-01-19 > 08:43:07 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 101 >>> 109.71.224.0/22 22 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 > 21:34:10 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 95 >>> 109.71.224.0/21 21 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 > 21:34:08 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>> 109.71.230.0/23 23 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 > 21:31:32 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 2 >>> 46.251.192.0/19 19 2012-02-15 08:00:00 UTC 2011-10-14 > 21:34:08 >>> UTC W RIPE NCC 103 >>> >>> >>> The route you mention >>> route: 2.16.56.0/23 >>> descr: Akamai Technologies >>> origin: AS20940 >>> and is part of 2.16.0.0/13 >>> >>> BTW I see these on some of my routers as: >>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:05, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 64.211.195.225 via xe-5/0/0.0 >>> [BGP/170] 4w0d 23:14:11, localpref 100 >>> AS path: 16245 3292 20940 I >>> > to 83.221.128.125 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>> >>> 2.16.56.0/23 *[BGP/170] 2d 09:41:14, MED 3593, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 109.238.48.254 via ae0.94 >>> [BGP/170] 1w6d 08:06:05, MED 0, localpref 110 >>> AS path: 3356 3549 20940 20940 I >>> > to 213.242.108.9 via xe-2/0/0.0 >>> So it would seem you have received these Akamai prefixes correctly, a > good >>> start >>> >>> Then hopefully we can get down to your problem. >>> >>> "I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is > >>> what rules they break, and >>> if we can resolve this issue through Ripe?" >>> >>> and >>> " >>> Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: >>> *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 > 2914 >>> 4436 20940 20940 i >>> * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 > 20485 >>> 3549 20940 20940 i >>> by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. >>> 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that > the >>> 9198 block sites. >>> On the request is silent and does not meet. >>> " >>> >>> Do you have a problem reaching Akamai - do you have problems reaching > other >>> destinations? >>> Do other have problems reaching you? >>> >>> Do you have problems with all your own prefixes/addresses? >>> >>> Can you use some traffic - like doing ping? but not UDP? or TCP? >>> >>> Include more information such as destination addresses tried, and >>> traceroutes to known >>> destinations that should work. >>> - I would do the test from each of your own prefixes >>> >>> More information is need to help you :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW I found most of this on: >>> http://bgp.he.net/AS50223 >>> http://bgp.he.net/AS9198 >>> >>> >>> Let us know if there is something wrong in the things we guess, so we > can >>> get to the matter of the >>> problem :-) >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Henrik >>> >>> -- >>> Henrik Lund Kramsh??j, Follower of the Great Way of Unix >>> hlk at kramse.org hlk at solidonetworks.com >>> +45 2026 6000 cand.scient CISSP CEH >>> http://solidonetworks.com/ Network Security is a business enabler >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >>> here, you can add or remove >>> addresses. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Ismoilov Gairatjon >> ATK Telecomm Technology >> Internet Service Provider >> 734002,Tajikistan,Dushanbe str. Bokhtar 35/1 >> tel.: (992 48) 7010045,7010043 >> Mob.: (992 93)5002202 >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general >> page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, >> you can add or remove addresses. > From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Wed Feb 15 21:26:41 2012 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:26:41 GMT Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce Message-ID: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being finished ready for lock down. brandon From gert at space.net Thu Feb 16 17:00:35 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:00:35 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120216160035.GC7742@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:26:41PM +0000, Brandon Butterworth wrote: > > Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. > > I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for > the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the > post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being > finished ready for lock down. So what about "tomorrow"? Or is this bad again, because it's Friday? 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From chris at filoo.de Thu Feb 16 17:04:46 2012 From: chris at filoo.de (Dr. Christopher Kunz) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:04:46 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <20120216160035.GC7742@Space.Net> References: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <20120216160035.GC7742@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4F3D291E.4030208@filoo.de> Hi, > > So what about "tomorrow"? Or is this bad again, because it's Friday? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster As usual, Gert's got a point. If you are actively looking for excuses not to enable v6, you will find them until the end of time. And the hen&egg issue will persist exactly as long. Didn't the BBC take part in the last IPv6 action day (last june or whenever it was)? Gru?, --ck -- filoo GmbH Dr. Christopher Kunz E-Mail: chris at filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestra?e 25a 33330 G?tersloh HRB4355, AG G?tersloh Gesch?ftsf?hrer: S.Grewing, J.Rehp?hler, Dr. C.Kunz Filoo im Web: http://www.filoo.de/ Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh Werden Sie unser Fan auf Facebook: http://facebook.com/filoogmbh From noc at solido.net Thu Feb 16 17:11:20 2012 From: noc at solido.net (=?utf-8?Q?Henrik_Kramsh=C3=B8j_Solido_NOC_abuse?=) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:11:20 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <72361A47-C73E-446E-8FCD-73A64207AA2F@solido.net> On 15/02/2012, at 20.26, Brandon Butterworth wrote: >> Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, >> that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. > > I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for > the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the > post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being > finished ready for lock down. Google: chinese olympics ipv6 Happened in 2008 nuff said Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 Any excuse is lame - this is 2012 dammit > brandon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Feb 16 17:07:58 2012 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:58 GMT Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce Message-ID: <201202161607.QAA19238@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > > I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for > > the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the > > post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being > > finished ready for lock down. > > So what about "tomorrow"? Or is this bad again, because it's Friday? There is that, it is also still before the Olympics (OK, you wanted a tl;dr explanation but that also can mean too long, didn't write) brandon From brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk Thu Feb 16 17:24:49 2012 From: brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk (Brandon Butterworth) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:24:49 GMT Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce Message-ID: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> > Google: chinese olympics ipv6 google UK olympics ipv6 > Happened in 2008 nuff said not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of stuff that really must work for the Olympics. Tough, would have been good to do. brandon From SupportCat at softcat.com Thu Feb 16 17:42:34 2012 From: SupportCat at softcat.com (SupportCat - Softcat Managed Services Service Desk) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:42:34 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <09D978FD2A4A2348A5536E1109B0A7070FEA862B@SRV-SCEX10DAG02.SC.LOCAL> Hi, Can supportcat at softcat.com please be removed from this e-mail chain. Thanks, Philip Reeve Network Operations Centre Analyst Softcat Ltd | Thames Ind. Est. | Fieldhouse Lane | Marlow | BUCKS | SL7 1TB Response Tel: 01628 403 789? | Website -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth Sent: 16 February 2012 16:25 To: members-discuss at ripe.net; noc at solido.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce > Google: chinese olympics ipv6 google UK olympics ipv6 > Happened in 2008 nuff said not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn > on ipv6 I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of stuff that really must work for the Olympics. Tough, would have been good to do. brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ============================== This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, copy, alter, or disclose the contents of this message. All information or opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Softcat Ltd or its affiliates. Softcat Ltd accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from its use, including damage from virus. Softcat Ltd. Thames Industrial Estate, Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, Bucks, SL7 1TB. Tel: 01628 403 403, Company Reg No: 2174990, VAT No. 491 8485 03. From alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net Thu Feb 16 17:46:49 2012 From: alfredo at solucionesdinamicas.net (Alfredo Sola) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:46:49 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <09D978FD2A4A2348A5536E1109B0A7070FEA862B@SRV-SCEX10DAG02.SC.LOCAL> References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <09D978FD2A4A2348A5536E1109B0A7070FEA862B@SRV-SCEX10DAG02.SC.LOCAL> Message-ID: <361CFC52-7582-4695-A887-713FF0D7AA8C@solucionesdinamicas.net> Hi, > Can supportcat at softcat.com please be removed from this e-mail chain. Well, you describe yourself as: > Network Operations Centre Analyst Right? Then earn your wages. I will give you a hint, two actually: It's up to you to be excluded from this mailing list. -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Feb 16 17:49:07 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: ofcourse every access provider could ditch ipv4 -right now- with the following mechanism: 1: take a /96 of your own ipv6 space 2: translate this 1:1 to the entire ipv4 address space (dos boxes with packet driver and some assembly/c code, modified linux kernel, programmable logic arrays in a hardware implementation, whatever) (ask any dude with experience in kernel/assembly programming in your company to code that stuff, its not that hard, normal LACP/803ad over 8 or so of these "bridges/translators" should spread the load just fine if it needs to be more than 1 or 10ge in one go ;) (as the mtu of ipv6 is 1280, ofcourse the tcpmss should be adjusted and DF cleared incoming and outgoing on the ipv4 end ;) 3: code a dns resolver that translates the A requests into AAAA answers (and passes on the AAAA requests unmodified to a normal one ;) 4: ??? 5: profit! only thing that won't work are protocols that don't support ipv6 because they are a seperate program that didn't implement it yet. so if you REALLY cannot get ipv4 anymore and need space for your customers and still want to give them the full internet, this is the way to go ;) if you're going to NAT them anyway, you might as well NAT them from ipv6 to the old ipv4 stuff (instead of ipv4->ipv4 ;) i don't see any out of the box solutions on the market, specificially for the "dns part" tho. for content providers, indeed, the loadbalancers should be able to deal with the "gatewaying" part just fine, nothing to change there on the actual servers. it's not exactly rocket science ppl, get on with it. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Brandon Butterworth wrote: >> Google: chinese olympics ipv6 > > google UK olympics ipv6 > >> Happened in 2008 nuff said > > not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > >> Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 > > I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago > it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no > other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already > decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of > stuff that really must work for the Olympics. > > Tough, would have been good to do. > > brandon > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From ripe-ncc-members-discussion at maz.nu Thu Feb 16 17:55:53 2012 From: ripe-ncc-members-discussion at maz.nu (Marek Isalski) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:55:53 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <361CFC52-7582-4695-A887-713FF0D7AA8C@solucionesdinamicas.net> References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <09D978FD2A4A2348A5536E1109B0A7070FEA862B@SRV-SCEX10DAG02.SC.LOCAL> <361CFC52-7582-4695-A887-713FF0D7AA8C@solucionesdinamicas.net> Message-ID: <8DA7CE38-56EA-4D45-AF14-3E64D9472818@maz.nu> >> Network Operations Centre Analyst > > Right? Then earn your wages. I will give you a hint, two actually: It's up to you to be excluded from this mailing list. Slightly scary that there are still companies out there providing NOC/etc support, selling to large organisations, who don't notice things like: > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Back to the IPv4/IPv6 issue at hand, however, my cynical belief is that if RIPE LIRs were charged membership fees proportional to their IPv4 consumption then the massive national telcos will hand back a large amount of v4 space and NAT444 everyone. Because they're going to have to do that anyway at the rate some of them are implementing v6 ? this would just be further incentive ;) /sarcasm mode now deactivated Marek Isalski Hostmaster, AS41495 From gert at space.net Thu Feb 16 18:46:37 2012 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:46:37 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120216174637.GE7742@Space.Net> Hi, (increasingly off-topic, this really should go to one of the ipv6-ops lists - recommending http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:49:07PM +0000, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > ofcourse every access provider could ditch ipv4 -right now- with the > following mechanism: > > 1: take a /96 of your own ipv6 space > > 2: translate this 1:1 to the entire ipv4 address space > (dos boxes with packet driver and some assembly/c code, modified linux > kernel, programmable logic arrays in a hardware implementation, whatever) Existing NAT64+DNS64 implementations. Just install and off you go :-) > 4: ??? > > 5: profit! 6: fail, because you get too many hotline calls that "skype does not work!", and large-scale telcos really need to avoid generating hotline calls > i don't see any out of the box solutions on the market, specificially for > the "dns part" tho. One DNS64 implementation comes as part of BIND9. > it's not exactly rocket science ppl, get on with it. To the contrary. Rockets were built in the 1960s... IPv6 is nearly as old now, so "IPv6 = rocket science = technology from the last century". That's one of the amazing parts :-) - the other one is how much energy is invested into *not* deploying IPv6. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From sven at cb3rob.net Thu Feb 16 18:48:21 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:48:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <8DA7CE38-56EA-4D45-AF14-3E64D9472818@maz.nu> References: <201202161624.QAA22437@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <09D978FD2A4A2348A5536E1109B0A7070FEA862B@SRV-SCEX10DAG02.SC.LOCAL> <361CFC52-7582-4695-A887-713FF0D7AA8C@solucionesdinamicas.net> <8DA7CE38-56EA-4D45-AF14-3E64D9472818@maz.nu> Message-ID: > > > Back to the IPv4/IPv6 issue at hand, however, my cynical belief is that if RIPE LIRs were charged membership fees proportional to their IPv4 consumption then the massive national telcos will hand back a large amount of v4 space and NAT444 everyone. Because they're going to have to do that anyway at the rate some of them are implementing v6 ? this would just be further incentive ;) at the rate some of them are implementing ipv6, at one point, they'll figure out they are the only thing left on ipv4 and don't have any content of their own, apart from their own lame website that tries to sell ppl an iphone :P > /sarcasm mode now deactivated > > Marek Isalski > Hostmaster, AS41495 > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Feb 17 00:00:13 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Lu Heng wrote: > Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based > on amount of resource we are using. > > Otherwise, as new comer(we too.), we pay more than old ones. it does make > for new start-up more difficult in some ways, and protected the old ones. > as the argument that the time the Lir have got the IP address which then it > was "cheaper", doesn't really stand on it's ground, because today, the new > IP and old IP has same value. For example, if you have 1Million dollar by > 1990, if you kept till today at home, you still spend the money as it is > today's 1 million dollar, but not the real money converted to today's > value(which will be way more than 1M due to inflation). if you had 20 kilos of silver coins with julus ceasar's ugly face on them 2000 years ago, they're still exchangable for exactly the same work/assets as they were back then. as resources are assets, their value should be represented in gold/silver, not in "representative currency money" by your theory, so you're thinking the wrong way around. there is one point in your argumentation, but you're missing it, and that is that by the time the "old lirs" became lirs, you just got a /16 or /15 or /14, when we became lir, you got a /18 or /19 or /20, and when "new people" become lirs now they get a /21 or /22 :P in 1990 btw, ripe wasn't even around yet, and anyone requesting ips at internic just got them there (and most still have them today and pay nothing ;) this includes some very very large networks. > > The same goes for IP, if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new > comer who got the IP but also the old ones who already had the IP. If > everybody is holding something has same value, why one party should be > paying more while another should be paying less. you're a lir, you're not even supposed to "hold ips" you're supposed to be a bureau that registers ips and ASNs for other people (PI or assiging your PA space to end-users). > I had a discussion with one of Ripe people, we also both think that Ripe > might should be charging member based on amount of IP they are using(which ripe members should not be using any ip at all (as a member), the ip registration belongs in a completely different branch/department than the "isp playing part" which most operate as well. (there are very few providers that have a seperate LIR department, and most that do usually only use it for internal assignments to their branches and sub-companies) the fact that most de-facto combine this and don't perform LIR services for third parties doesn't mean that that is the way it was intended. > is "real fair"), but they cannot do it. I don't know if everybody realize > this: Most large company spend less on their millions IP than their > coffees(Think of that, in per IP costs term, the one in extra large are > paying 5500 Euro for about 10 million IPs, which means 0.00000055 > Euro/Ip/year for them, while for small ones around 50 cents/ip/year, which > is almost 1 million times more expensive than what the large ones paying). > So the solution might be raise the "large" member's fee and lower small > member's fee, which was exactly what charging scheme was trying to do. My > personal opinion on the new charging scheme, it just was not raise enough > for the extra large ones. otherwise it will get pass:) you are "contributing" to ripe as a -member-, this makes you a LIR, this gives you the opportunity to register resources for third parties, and that's about where it ends. there is no link between ips and price, there is an "administrative cost" per resource registration (block of ips/asn) that you pay to ripe, so ripe, as an association of lirs, can cover it's operating costs. > But on the other side of the story, I mean the current fees are only > few thousands euro a year, it is less costs then anything else in your > business, your server, you data center, your peering, it is almost the > cheapest thing in this business, I do think ripe is very efficiency > organization based on what amount of resource it's managing. Even though I > do think it might not be very fair for most small ones and new comers, but > personally I complaint on something already happened might not be a very > good idea, it might be more worth to spend more than discuss the 2013's > charging scheme will looks like. See if we can get more fair this time:) anyway, move on to ipv6, problem solved, plenty of space there. (more than there will ever be people or computers in the entire universe ;) we can currently give out 4 billion 32 bit asn's (maybe we should have made that 64 bit right away to match the usual 64 bit subnet mask on ipv6 ;) but both on ipv6 and asn's i don't see any issues for a few centuries to come we can "stretch" ipv4 by adding costs to it, making the old e-class space routable, reclaiming the us-dod networks, maybe even reversing some "private address space" networks such as the 10/8 and most of the 127/8 (no reason why "localhost" needs a whole /8 after all, etc, but why the hell should we, just get it over with, it's gone, MOVE ON TO IPV6 - NOW. the sooner ipv4 runs out, the better, it gives ppl that didn't implement ipv6 yet a kick in the butt to move along or move out of the way in short: get ipv6, or get out of this line of business. -fast-. and as for "adding cost", even if you make it a few million per year, you still won't motivate multinationals to give up address space because they simply don't have anyone capable of understanding the profitability, big old companies are clueless and slow and will never get the point (which is why they didn't implement ipv6 yet in most cases ;) nobody in their organisation is going to take the responsibility to figure out what ips they have and return the unused ones (in some cases, all of them ;) as they're all just getting their monthly wage and nobody is willing to take risks, in short: they'll just pay whatever ripe (we, the members) put on the invoice, and not give back the (unused) ips. ripe gets a lot of money, has to pay more taxes, and still doesn't get more ipv4 :P (not to mention that 32 bit addressing limits it to a few years after that anyway, and then they still did not implement ipv6) so that doesn't work, its not a solution, its a delay to the real solution, which is ipv6. -roll out ipv6- -today-. > > Lu > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM, wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- >>> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Comunicaciones ACOTELSA >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:18 PM >>> To: members-discuss at ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees >>> >> ... >>> >>> And I don?t like speak about the general meetings to deal the new >>> charge scheme because in my enterprise, with only one /26 IPv4, we >>> can?t pay the cost to go to the general meeting (travel, salary) and I >>> and imagine that there are more like us so only the big enterprise can >>> assist, negotiate and vote (although we can use the internet vote). >> Yes! You knew this! Why you don't use your vote rights through the >> Internet then? It doesn't rise you expenses and you have had the full >> ability to vote for all questions since this year! Many LIRs got the >> opportunity at the last meeting. Our company can't (like yours) go to each >> general meeting, but I took every opportunity for 3 year already to vote >> electronically! >> >>> >>> In resume, I can't understand why a foundation increase its expenses >>> year over year. >> If you don't take part in the community discussions and don't vote - >> you'll never know why. You can read all about last GM and learn that for >> the coming year RIPE NCC will publish expenses in more details. You can >> suggest to eliminate an activity to lower the overall cost and if you have >> support - the increases may stop! >> >> Regards, >> Vladislav Potapov >> Ru.iiat >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > > > -- > -- > 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. > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Feb 17 00:04:30 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees In-Reply-To: <5e26acee-5980-4291-86c6-fcd1763e14a4@ehosting.teklan.com.tr> References: <5e26acee-5980-4291-86c6-fcd1763e14a4@ehosting.teklan.com.tr> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote: > up to now.. > i have never spoken... > i do now...!!! > this guys are working at the edge.. > it must be hot on the side of the sun... > ip addresses getting low. > and nobody concieve ip 6... > it is a hard world...or whatever.. we did. just that we cannot go to: - google - facebook - youtube - twitter with it, despite the fact that all of them have demonstrated to have a working set up more than 9 months ago. jeez people, it took us less time to migrate everything from ax.25 with bpq over ethernet to ipv4 back in the packet radio days than it's taking these people to "turn on" something they already have... as for cable and xdsl providers, they have no excuse at all, just put the stuff into -briding mode- with autoconfig for all i care and ditch the crappy pppoe/pppoa if that doesn't "work" on the CPE and you don't feel like shipping new ones or kicking your vendor in the butt and force them to make a firmware upgrade for 10 year old adsl modems. (even with 10 year old ones, there is no excuse for a 20 year old protocol not to be supported ;) > > i WILL pay my price.. > and i advice u must do the same.. > > thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... > ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Blessing" > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote: > >> You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. >> You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'. >> >> What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'. > > The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and > address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or > at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee > structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used. > > The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are > looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, > tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides > a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan > for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications > of changing the charging structure. > > The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these > documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong > views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure > the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to > discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates). > > J > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Feb 17 00:19:34 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees In-Reply-To: <5e26acee-5980-4291-86c6-fcd1763e14a4@ehosting.teklan.com.tr> References: <5e26acee-5980-4291-86c6-fcd1763e14a4@ehosting.teklan.com.tr> Message-ID: maybe it's time for ripe to send a letter by registered mail addressed -personally- to the chairman of the board of any big multinational company that it's time for them too to move onto ipv6 and set up a task-force to roll it out ASAP, as i'm under the impression that the dusty nerds at the noc did not make it clear enough to the management (years ago) that this HAS to be done ASAP and will cost them a few million euros somehow i think that in management terms "ipv6 is somethign they have read about in the news papers" but don't really see that its REQUIRED to stay in business very soon. they will then hire all kinds of expensive consultants which will get them to upgrade their stuff, as large multinationals always do, but at least things will get moving. there seems to be a lot of mis-communication about the "urgency" of the thing, if we end up with an internet where 1/3rd of it is ipv4 only, 1/3rd is dual stack and 1/3rd is ipv6 only, it's pretty much worthless. (and the ipv4 only part is going to lose their business sooner rather than later ;) no AAAA records for www.deutsche-bank.de and www.abnamro.nl don't tell me they don't have the cash to buy a few new routers or hire a consultant tomorrow :P etc. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote: > up to now.. > i have never spoken... > i do now...!!! > this guys are working at the edge.. > it must be hot on the side of the sun... > ip addresses getting low. > and nobody concieve ip 6... > it is a hard world...or whatever.. > > i WILL pay my price.. > and i advice u must do the same.. > > thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... > ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Blessing" > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote: > >> You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. >> You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'. >> >> What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'. > > The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and > address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or > at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee > structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used. > > The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are > looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, > tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides > a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan > for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications > of changing the charging structure. > > The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these > documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong > views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure > the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to > discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates). > > J > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From k.bekreyev at darstelecom.ru Fri Feb 17 07:28:06 2012 From: k.bekreyev at darstelecom.ru (Konstantin V Bekreyev) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:28:06 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce In-Reply-To: <72361A47-C73E-446E-8FCD-73A64207AA2F@solido.net> References: <201202152026.UAA23053@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> <72361A47-C73E-446E-8FCD-73A64207AA2F@solido.net> Message-ID: <4F3DF376.5070303@darstelecom.ru> Hello, > Google: chinese olympics ipv6 But their site doesn't respond: http://ipv6.beijing2008.cn/en/ipv6/ > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 Excellent presentation of why you need to enable ipv6 after load-balancers: http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2012/02/slides-the-case-for-ipv6-only-data-centers/ -- With best regards, Konstantin V Bekreyev (CVB-RIPE) DARS Telecom, Ulyanovsk, Russia From krichy at tvnetwork.hu Fri Feb 17 16:19:01 2012 From: krichy at tvnetwork.hu (Richard Kojedzinszky) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:19:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner Message-ID: Dear members, Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I am missing the auth: fields. $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE # Filtered >From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query the full object: mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 auth: X509-2577 mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then send it back, this does not work anymore. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. From marek at faelix.net Fri Feb 17 16:33:25 2012 From: marek at faelix.net (Marek Isalski) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:33:25 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 Feb 2012, at 15:19, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: > And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then > send it back, this does not work anymore. > Any suggestions are welcome. I noticed this while trying to do the same yesterday ? seems you have to authenticate with the RIPE DB first ? via the website. Even specifying "-B" on the whois query you still get a "source: RIPE #Filtered" line. Of course, how one authenticates with the website when it only supports MD5 password authentication... yes, this is interesting. Marek Isalski Hostmaster, Faelix Limited, AS41495 From sven at cb3rob.net Fri Feb 17 16:57:59 2012 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hmm.. as the ripe db needs an exact copy of the current contents before deleting old objects, which we usually obtain from whois... i guess that script no longer works :P anyway, the ripe mailrobot needs a better way to just "delete all objects that are within inetnum: this-until-that" anyway, rather than having to whois the whole pile of crap ip-by-ip to find leftovers :P (why the hell does it need anything besides inetnum: bla-bla and "delete" and the password anyway, not to mention the "overlaps are not covered for" thing ;) see this is why you -need- the whois output to work, scripted deletes require it ;) (just clearing it all and generating new entries from the route table + database is much easier than updating old junk, but the delete process is a bit... crappy ;) not sure how to do this on ipv6 anyway... ipv6 is a bit -much- to just whois one by one to delete the leftovers *grin* maybe an option to clear an entire PA network (and then just re-create the ones actually in use ;) would be .. practical... -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven at cb3rob.net ========================================================================= C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Marek Isalski wrote: > On 17 Feb 2012, at 15:19, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >> And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then >> send it back, this does not work anymore. >> Any suggestions are welcome. > > I noticed this while trying to do the same yesterday ? seems you have to authenticate with the RIPE DB first ? via the website. Even specifying "-B" on the whois query you still get a "source: RIPE #Filtered" line. > > Of course, how one authenticates with the website when it only supports MD5 password authentication... yes, this is interesting. > > Marek Isalski > Hostmaster, Faelix Limited, AS41495 > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From denis at ripe.net Fri Feb 17 17:20:48 2012 From: denis at ripe.net (Denis Walker) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:20:48 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3E7E60.4040901@ripe.net> Dear Richard There is an easy way to do this with Webupdates. Starting with the "Modify or Delete an object" page on the url you mentioned, https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html, enter your MNTNER object name in the search box then select the "modify object in single text area" option. When you click on "Search" you will see the full object, including the "auth:" attributes, in a text area. You can copy and paste this data and use any update method you choose. Please note that this only has an impact on changes to the MNTNER object itself, as requested by the community through the RIPE Database Working Group (DB WG) to hide the MD5 hashes from public view. Changing any other object type remains as it was. The change was discussed in detail on the DB WG mailing list. If you have any suggestions on this behaviour, you may wish to discuss them on that list. Full details of how the new process works can be seen here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/securing-md5-hashes-in-the-ripe-database Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Group On 17/02/12:8 4:19 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: > Dear members, > > Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed > emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered > result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I > am missing the auth: fields. > > $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE > % This is the RIPE Database query service. > % The objects are in RPSL format. > % > % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. > % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf > > % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' > > mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE > admin-c: RK1387-RIPE > upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu > mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 > changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 > changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 > source: RIPE # Filtered > >>From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query > the full object: > > mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE > admin-c: RK1387-RIPE > upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu > auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 > auth: X509-2577 > mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE > changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 > changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 > changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 > source: RIPE > > > And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then > send it back, this does not work anymore. > > Any suggestions are welcome. > > Regards, > > Kojedzinszky Richard > Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > From neufeind at speedpartner.de Fri Feb 17 16:52:54 2012 From: neufeind at speedpartner.de (Stefan Neufeind, SpeedPartner) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:52:54 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3E77D6.3010504@speedpartner.de> On 02/17/2012 04:33 PM, Marek Isalski wrote: > On 17 Feb 2012, at 15:19, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >> And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then >> send it back, this does not work anymore. >> Any suggestions are welcome. > > I noticed this while trying to do the same yesterday ? seems you have to authenticate with the RIPE DB first ? via the website. Even specifying "-B" on the whois query you still get a "source: RIPE #Filtered" line. > > Of course, how one authenticates with the website when it only supports MD5 password authentication... yes, this is interesting. Hi, Well, you can switch to the textarea-view, GPG-sign your update and submit it there - no prior MD5-authentication required :-) (And for doing that using Firefox the great FireGPG-extension comes in handy.) Kind regards, Stefan Neufeind From krichy at tvnetwork.hu Fri Feb 17 17:26:20 2012 From: krichy at tvnetwork.hu (Richard Kojedzinszky) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:26:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: <4F3E7E60.4040901@ripe.net> References: <4F3E7E60.4040901@ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear Denis, Thanks for your reply. As I am unix user, I have only text console, and using a browser on that is very uncomfortable. Ok, that was a joke only, but the question still stands: what if I dont have a password for my mntner, as the link you've sent mentions that the webupdates will only show the object after authentication. Regards, Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Denis Walker wrote: > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:20:48 +0100 > From: Denis Walker > To: Richard Kojedzinszky > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] whois mntner > > Dear Richard > > There is an easy way to do this with Webupdates. Starting with the > "Modify or Delete an object" page on the url you mentioned, > https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html, enter your MNTNER > object name in the search box then select the "modify object in single > text area" option. When you click on "Search" you will see the full > object, including the "auth:" attributes, in a text area. You can copy > and paste this data and use any update method you choose. > > Please note that this only has an impact on changes to the MNTNER object > itself, as requested by the community through the RIPE Database Working > Group (DB WG) to hide the MD5 hashes from public view. Changing any > other object type remains as it was. The change was discussed in detail > on the DB WG mailing list. If you have any suggestions on this > behaviour, you may wish to discuss them on that list. > > Full details of how the new process works can be seen here: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/securing-md5-hashes-in-the-ripe-database > > Regards, > > Denis Walker > Business Analyst > RIPE NCC Database Group > > > On 17/02/12:8 4:19 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >> Dear members, >> >> Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed >> emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered >> result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I >> am missing the auth: fields. >> >> $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> % This is the RIPE Database query service. >> % The objects are in RPSL format. >> % >> % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. >> % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf >> >> % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' >> >> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >> source: RIPE # Filtered >> >>> From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query >> the full object: >> >> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >> auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 >> auth: X509-2577 >> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >> source: RIPE >> >> >> And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then >> send it back, this does not work anymore. >> >> Any suggestions are welcome. >> >> Regards, >> >> Kojedzinszky Richard >> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > From denis at ripe.net Fri Feb 17 18:04:22 2012 From: denis at ripe.net (Denis Walker) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:04:22 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: References: <4F3E7E60.4040901@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4F3E8896.7080703@ripe.net> Dear Richard After the discussion on the DB WG mailing list it was agreed that all "auth:" attributes will be hidden from public view in a 'normal' query output. The only way now to see the full object is with Webupdates. For any MNTNER object that has an MD5 password, authentication must be supplied to see the full objects. This also applies if the MNTNER has both MD5 password and PGP/X509. If the MNTNER has only PGP/X509 and no passwords, you still need to use Webupdates to see the full object. But in this latter case, no authentication is needed to see the object. So in your case, if you just follow the steps outlined below you will see the full MNTNER object including the "auth:" attributes, without having to enter any authentication. btw...I think the Lynx browser still works from a text only console. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Group On 17/02/12:8 5:26 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: > Dear Denis, > > Thanks for your reply. As I am unix user, I have only text console, and > using a browser on that is very uncomfortable. Ok, that was a joke only, > but the question still stands: what if I dont have a password for my > mntner, as the link you've sent mentions that the webupdates will only > show the object after authentication. > > Regards, > > Kojedzinszky Richard > Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Denis Walker wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:20:48 +0100 >> From: Denis Walker >> To: Richard Kojedzinszky >> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] whois mntner >> >> Dear Richard >> >> There is an easy way to do this with Webupdates. Starting with the >> "Modify or Delete an object" page on the url you mentioned, >> https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html, enter your MNTNER >> object name in the search box then select the "modify object in single >> text area" option. When you click on "Search" you will see the full >> object, including the "auth:" attributes, in a text area. You can copy >> and paste this data and use any update method you choose. >> >> Please note that this only has an impact on changes to the MNTNER object >> itself, as requested by the community through the RIPE Database Working >> Group (DB WG) to hide the MD5 hashes from public view. Changing any >> other object type remains as it was. The change was discussed in detail >> on the DB WG mailing list. If you have any suggestions on this >> behaviour, you may wish to discuss them on that list. >> >> Full details of how the new process works can be seen here: >> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/securing-md5-hashes-in-the-ripe-database >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Denis Walker >> Business Analyst >> RIPE NCC Database Group >> >> >> On 17/02/12:8 4:19 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >>> Dear members, >>> >>> Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed >>> emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered >>> result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. >>> So I >>> am missing the auth: fields. >>> >>> $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> % This is the RIPE Database query service. >>> % The objects are in RPSL format. >>> % >>> % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. >>> % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf >>> >>> % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' >>> >>> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >>> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >>> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >>> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>> source: RIPE # Filtered >>> >>>> From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can >>>> query >>> the full object: >>> >>> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >>> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >>> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >>> auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 >>> auth: X509-2577 >>> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>> source: RIPE >>> >>> >>> And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then >>> send it back, this does not work anymore. >>> >>> Any suggestions are welcome. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Kojedzinszky Richard >>> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >>> >>> ---- >>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>> general page: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>> >>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >>> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >>> >> > From krichy at tvnetwork.hu Sat Feb 18 00:49:21 2012 From: krichy at tvnetwork.hu (Richard Kojedzinszky) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:49:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [members-discuss] whois mntner In-Reply-To: <4F3E8896.7080703@ripe.net> References: <4F3E7E60.4040901@ripe.net> <4F3E8896.7080703@ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear Denis, Thanks for your response. I've probably missed that point, so that if my object has no password, than I will be able to see the whole at least on webupdates. Thanks for the replies, regards. Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Denis Walker wrote: > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:04:22 +0100 > From: Denis Walker > To: Richard Kojedzinszky > Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] whois mntner > > Dear Richard > > After the discussion on the DB WG mailing list it was agreed that all > "auth:" attributes will be hidden from public view in a 'normal' query > output. The only way now to see the full object is with Webupdates. For > any MNTNER object that has an MD5 password, authentication must be > supplied to see the full objects. This also applies if the MNTNER has > both MD5 password and PGP/X509. If the MNTNER has only PGP/X509 and no > passwords, you still need to use Webupdates to see the full object. But > in this latter case, no authentication is needed to see the object. > > So in your case, if you just follow the steps outlined below you will > see the full MNTNER object including the "auth:" attributes, without > having to enter any authentication. > > btw...I think the Lynx browser still works from a text only console. > > Regards, > > Denis Walker > Business Analyst > RIPE NCC Database Group > > > On 17/02/12:8 5:26 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >> Dear Denis, >> >> Thanks for your reply. As I am unix user, I have only text console, and >> using a browser on that is very uncomfortable. Ok, that was a joke only, >> but the question still stands: what if I dont have a password for my >> mntner, as the link you've sent mentions that the webupdates will only >> show the object after authentication. >> >> Regards, >> >> Kojedzinszky Richard >> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Denis Walker wrote: >> >>> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:20:48 +0100 >>> From: Denis Walker >>> To: Richard Kojedzinszky >>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] whois mntner >>> >>> Dear Richard >>> >>> There is an easy way to do this with Webupdates. Starting with the >>> "Modify or Delete an object" page on the url you mentioned, >>> https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html, enter your MNTNER >>> object name in the search box then select the "modify object in single >>> text area" option. When you click on "Search" you will see the full >>> object, including the "auth:" attributes, in a text area. You can copy >>> and paste this data and use any update method you choose. >>> >>> Please note that this only has an impact on changes to the MNTNER object >>> itself, as requested by the community through the RIPE Database Working >>> Group (DB WG) to hide the MD5 hashes from public view. Changing any >>> other object type remains as it was. The change was discussed in detail >>> on the DB WG mailing list. If you have any suggestions on this >>> behaviour, you may wish to discuss them on that list. >>> >>> Full details of how the new process works can be seen here: >>> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/securing-md5-hashes-in-the-ripe-database >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Denis Walker >>> Business Analyst >>> RIPE NCC Database Group >>> >>> >>> On 17/02/12:8 4:19 PM, Richard Kojedzinszky wrote: >>>> Dear members, >>>> >>>> Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed >>>> emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered >>>> result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. >>>> So I >>>> am missing the auth: fields. >>>> >>>> $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> % This is the RIPE Database query service. >>>> % The objects are in RPSL format. >>>> % >>>> % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. >>>> % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf >>>> >>>> % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' >>>> >>>> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >>>> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >>>> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >>>> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >>>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>>> source: RIPE # Filtered >>>> >>>>> From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can >>>>> query >>>> the full object: >>>> >>>> mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE >>>> admin-c: RK1387-RIPE >>>> upd-to: richardk at tvnetwork.hu >>>> auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 >>>> auth: X509-2577 >>>> mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE >>>> changed: richardk at tvnetwork.hu 20080417 >>>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>>> changed: krichy at tvnetwork.hu 20090814 >>>> source: RIPE >>>> >>>> >>>> And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then >>>> send it back, this does not work anymore. >>>> >>>> Any suggestions are welcome. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Kojedzinszky Richard >>>> Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt. >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >>>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >>>> general page: >>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >>>> >>>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >>>> From here, you can add or remove addresses. >>>> >>> >> > From hakan at acikisp.com Sat Feb 18 18:29:13 2012 From: hakan at acikisp.com (hakan hn. nebioglu) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:29:13 +0200 (EET) Subject: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: there are rules.!!? 1-i wont speak for the third time.. 2-telling the truth or looking for justice or magic-mushrooms or cocain; wont help anybody... even it should..:) 3-we cannot bgp uplevels, at the ipv6 case..just because , they are not into it.. even if, they refuse to use bgp 4.. i do " live" exact conditions u, may perceive.. guess it is "a fine life line" a-dont fight for ip4 b-try ipv6 and be free... z.h.n. ps1:first rule of ipv6.. you do not talk about ipv6 :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Olaf Kamphuis" To: "hakan hn. nebioglu" Cc: "James Blessing" , members-discuss at ripe.net Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:04:30 AM Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, hakan hn. nebioglu wrote: > up to now.. > i have never spoken... > i do now...!!! > this guys are working at the edge.. > it must be hot on the side of the sun... > ip addresses getting low. > and nobody concieve ip 6... > it is a hard world...or whatever.. we did. just that we cannot go to: - google - facebook - youtube - twitter with it, despite the fact that all of them have demonstrated to have a working set up more than 9 months ago. jeez people, it took us less time to migrate everything from ax.25 with bpq over ethernet to ipv4 back in the packet radio days than it's taking these people to "turn on" something they already have... as for cable and xdsl providers, they have no excuse at all, just put the stuff into -briding mode- with autoconfig for all i care and ditch the crappy pppoe/pppoa if that doesn't "work" on the CPE and you don't feel like shipping new ones or kicking your vendor in the butt and force them to make a firmware upgrade for 10 year old adsl modems. (even with 10 year old ones, there is no excuse for a 20 year old protocol not to be supported ;) > > i WILL pay my price.. > and i advice u must do the same.. > > thanks ripe.tahnks for everything...... > ps:i am 50 years old..pls stand stiil...and be thankfull.... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Blessing" > To: members-discuss at ripe.net > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:32:47 PM > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 14/12/2011 09:27, Manfred F. Schramm wrote: > >> You can tend to the opinion 'once claimed always claimed', no new monetary assessment. >> You can also tend to the opinion 'each loaned IP-Range is to be regarded equally, whether newly assigned or assigned years ago'. >> >> What i can understand is some members 'feeling', the elder members did some 'protection of establishment'. > > The proposed (and counter proposed) fee structures for 2012 did try and > address this by taking out the time limitations but the membership (or > at least those that voted) did not believe that the final proposed fee > structure was acceptable and therefore the 2011 one was re-used. > > The NCC board (I believe) have taken these views on board and are > looking to propose a new structure for 2013 that addresses this issue, > tries to tie membership fees to 'size' more accurately and also provides > a fully costed breakdown of the individual elements in the activity plan > for 2013. They will also have to take into account the tax implications > of changing the charging structure. > > The membership will have plenty of time to read and respond to these > documents when published and vote on them next year. If you have strong > views or wish to publish your own ideas for a charging scheme I'm sure > the NCC board (and the rest of the membership) will be willing to > discuss them (or tear them to pieces as the mood dictates). > > J > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.