[members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

Hello,

I shall reply because I am being misquoted.  I did not say my employer would drop membership due to _any_ price increases.  Only that within the context of if the charging model were to change to be based upon size of IPv4 allocation, then in that scenario it makes financial sense to spin off a 2nd LIR to separate registration of Legacy and non-Legacy space, then drop membership for the Legacy owner.  We would then retain membership under the lower-cost 2nd LIR.  But again, this only applies to the charging models being proposed in the discussion at that time, and is not how I expect our organisation to behave under the current models.


Now, allow me to remove my employee-hat:

I see no problem with paying for services based on fair share of usage.  But your example of reverse DNS as a yardstick for measuring fair share is a poor one.  The burden on RIPE to maintain such records does not change with size of address space.

In the case of our inetnum below, there would only be one set of records under 151.in-addr.arpa pointing to who to query for anything under 133.151.in-addr.arpa.  If anything, the burden on RIPE is higher for members with fragmented address space, who will require more DNS records so that each fragment is pointing to the correct DNS servers.

Clearly it wouldn't make sense to propose charging based on reverse DNS usage, even partially, and this would disproportionately affect newer members who did not get the luxury of having their entire allocation as a single block like those with older or Legacy allocations.  And really, in today's age of computing power and automation, even if you happen to have hundreds of small allocations, the difference between RIPE hosting 5 or 500 pointers to the next-level DNS servers is small (random numbers picked out of a hat).

If we want to talk fair share of usage, there are many other factors to consider, starting with other types of resources maintained such as IPv6 allocations or AS numbers, and how they are maintained.


Regards,

Muntasir




-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Floris Bos
Sent: 15 May 2018 12:57
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

On 05/15/2018 09:49 AM, Tim Armstrong wrote:
> I'm afraid what you are suggesting is impossible, there are no such
> ranges that exist as both RIR space and legacy space.

For the purpose of services like reverse DNS there are.

E.g. let's take legacy holder London Borough of Newham as an example, that in the 2016 discussion mentioned that if any price increases would apply to them they would drop their membership.

==
inetnum:        151.133.0.0 - 151.133.255.255
netname:        LBNEWHAM
status:         LEGACY
==

Yes, that's legacy space all right.
And you are right that is their property, and all that, and yes, they can take their ball home.

But who is responsible for providing services to that range?
Who does reverse DNS for everything that starts with 151.x.x.x?

==
$ host -t SOA 151.in-addr.arpa
151.in-addr.arpa has SOA record pri.authdns.ripe.net. dns.ripe.net.
1526370342 3600 600 864000 3600
==

Oh, we do...

And that's the part I disagree with.
It's fine with me if you want to claim independence, but then you should not be expecting to continue to receive services you are not willing to pay your fair share for.


Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos



________________________________

NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham.
However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it.
You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk.
We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network.
The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.