From noreply at ripe.net Mon Jul 6 12:57:37 2009 From: noreply at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:57:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey: Deadline Extended! Message-ID: <4A51D8A1.70001@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, The deadline for responding to the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey has been extended to Friday, 10 July 2009. This survey is being conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult, working with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission. The aim is to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region, and all members of the RIPE community are encouraged to participate. You can access the survey at: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. Results will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 and published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please note that all data will be kept confidential at all times, and will only be disclosed on an aggregated level. For more information on the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, please see: http://www.ripe.net/news/ipv6-deployment-monitoring-survey.html We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to . Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC From jeroen at easyhosting.nl Wed Jul 15 14:02:10 2009 From: jeroen at easyhosting.nl (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:02:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space Message-ID: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> Hello Members, I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently becoming something ridiculous. Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be used on the servers. Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract base until he understands procedures) And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question on how many servers are involved here. And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a ridiculous amount of time and communication. As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or HOPING to see, but come on. I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Jul 15 15:03:48 2009 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:03:48 +0000 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Jeroen, 2 quick comments: regarding the supposedly irresponsible questions and - how I read between your lines, thus I may be wrong! - your feeling or impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster involved; I'd suggest that you try to escalate the ticket up the tree within the NCC. 2ndly, my feeling is that it would be more straightforward (and easier to live within the procedures) to have your customer establish its own LIR from the very beginning, with your team supplying the expertise and help to do so. I myself are in the game of cleaning up some PI stuff, within the new policy, and to get those resources moved to the LIRs which have been established in the meantime. My 2 centavos, Wilfried Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > Hello Members, > > I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with > requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. > > Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own > IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to > routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things > going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. > Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges > and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. > > After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI > /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently > becoming something ridiculous. > > Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced > up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being > assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use > and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much > IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. > > Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's > administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be > used on the servers. > > Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us > or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself > since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not > intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract > base until he understands procedures) > > And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on > contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes > that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question > on how many servers are involved here. > > And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for > our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much > meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a > ridiculous amount of time and communication. > > As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good > technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own > PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean > towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business > in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that > a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has > *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). > > Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, > so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or > HOPING to see, but come on. > > I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously > going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a > routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on > why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my > customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller > chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this > customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. > > From jeroen at easyhosting.nl Wed Jul 15 15:18:15 2009 From: jeroen at easyhosting.nl (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:18:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> Hi Wilfried, No it's not intended to be an impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster, nor any other personal grudge against him. I know he's following policy on how address space needs to be handed out and he's doing his job on that, and that's where my problem seems to be, the overly harsh policy for PI allocations. I've upped this question to some other Dutch network operators/LIR's and it seems we're not alone in this issue and that it's overly hard and difficult to request PI resources. Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for him. Our customer is trying to start his own network and if he can start doing some of the routing himself. Using a PI based IP and AS for that is more desirable then becoming a full blown LIR at this point. If his routing attempt turns out on nothing we can return the AS and PI or route the PI space for him through our equipment. Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > > 2 quick comments: regarding the supposedly irresponsible questions > and - how I read between your lines, thus I may be wrong! - your feeling > or impression of limited technical expertise of the hostmaster involved; > I'd suggest that you try to escalate the ticket up the tree within the NCC. > > 2ndly, my feeling is that it would be more straightforward (and easier to > live within the procedures) to have your customer establish its own LIR from > the very beginning, with your team supplying the expertise and help to do so. > > I myself are in the game of cleaning up some PI stuff, within the new policy, > and to get those resources moved to the LIRs which have been established in > the meantime. > > My 2 centavos, > Wilfried > > Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > > >> Hello Members, >> >> I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with >> requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. >> >> Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own >> IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to >> routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things >> going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. >> Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges >> and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. >> >> After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI >> /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently >> becoming something ridiculous. >> >> Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced >> up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being >> assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use >> and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much >> IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. >> >> Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's >> administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be >> used on the servers. >> >> Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us >> or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself >> since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not >> intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract >> base until he understands procedures) >> >> And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on >> contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes >> that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question >> on how many servers are involved here. >> >> And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for >> our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much >> meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a >> ridiculous amount of time and communication. >> >> As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good >> technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own >> PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean >> towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business >> in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that >> a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has >> *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). >> >> Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, >> so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or >> HOPING to see, but come on. >> >> I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously >> going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a >> routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on >> why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my >> customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller >> chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this >> customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. >> >> >> > > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl From jeroen at unfix.org Wed Jul 15 16:00:42 2009 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:00:42 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <4A5DE10A.2080300@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Jeroen Wunnink wrote: [..] > Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for > him. Our customer is trying to start his own network and if he can start > doing some of the routing himself. http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html Extra Small: 1300 EUR / year So, he is able to buy routing kit, hookups to IXs,, tansit and those things, but a LIR fee of 1300 EUR is too much? :) Drink a few less beers every week and you have that together. Sorry to say, but thinking of it from an ops perspective I do hope that this customer also has a correctly working abuse desk and people who are monitoring this network gear. (which means they have to caugh up for people and other resources there too which far exceeds those little fees). Because if they don't they are just another nuisance on the Internet.... (not that money should stop people from being able to use it mind you) Greets, Jeroen (okay, another 2k signup... but what is the deal, you can barely buy 1 proper 1U box for that total amount) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Jul 15 16:21:37 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:21:37 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> (Jeroen Wunnink's message of "Wed\, 15 Jul 2009 15\:18\:15 +0200") References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <8263duc9hq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Jeroen Wunnink: > Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for > him. How does that change anything? For PA space, he'd have to demonstrate a need for a /21, not just for a /24, which is more difficult. I used to think that you'd get your initial assignment with basically no questions asked because you can't run an ISP without addresses and it's difficult to predict address space requirements without any experience, but this isn't the case. Of course, the net effect is that RIPE receives rather optimistic business plans because new LIRs need to somehow fullfil the minimum size requirements posed by RIPE NCC, or your LIR status is totally pointless. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From gert at space.net Wed Jul 15 16:40:14 2009 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:40:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <8263duc9hq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> <8263duc9hq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <20090715144014.GS26102@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:21:37PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jeroen Wunnink: > > > Yes of course he can become a LIR, but that's a lot more expensive for > > him. > > How does that change anything? For PA space, he'd have to demonstrate > a need for a /21, not just for a /24, which is more difficult. As a LIR, to receive PA space, all you need to document is the wish to assign addresses to your customers (or to your infrastructure). "Demonstrate need for the whole initial PA allocation" is a thing we had in the policy for a while, but got rid of that about 5 years ago (because all it did was "make startup ISPs go for multiple PI instead"). Please do not post outdated policy information. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 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 fweimer at bfk.de Wed Jul 15 17:15:40 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:15:40 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <20090715144014.GS26102@Space.Net> (Gert Doering's message of "Wed\, 15 Jul 2009 16\:40\:14 +0200") References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DD3B4.8020804@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4A5DD717.9060109@easyhosting.nl> <8263duc9hq.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <20090715144014.GS26102@Space.Net> Message-ID: <82y6qqasf7.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Gert Doering: > As a LIR, to receive PA space, all you need to document is the wish to > assign addresses to your customers (or to your infrastructure). > > "Demonstrate need for the whole initial PA allocation" is a thing we had > in the policy for a while, but got rid of that about 5 years ago (because > all it did was "make startup ISPs go for multiple PI instead"). > > Please do not post outdated policy information. Gert, perhaps it will surprise you, but we've turned LIR only very recently. 8-) My comment wasn't about policy, but about policy as implemented by RIPE NCC. I was as surprised as you apparently are---the information available to us before gaining LIR status and requesting initial assignment did not document any minimum size requirement or growth expectations for LIRs. (Thanks for confirming that, by the way.) -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From laura at ripe.net Wed Jul 15 17:57:40 2009 From: laura at ripe.net (Laura Cobley) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:57:40 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <4A5DFC74.4030504@ripe.net> Dear Jeroen, Florian and all, The RIPE NCC has an internal escalation procedure for handling concerns about the way your request has been handled. You can ask for any request to be escalated by sending an email to hostmaster at ripe.net and quoting the relevant NCC# ticket number. Your request will then be reviewed and assessed by senior staff. If your concern is of a more serious nature, please refer to the RIPE NCC's Conflict Arbitration Procedure available online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/arbitration.html Regards, Laura Cobley RIPE NCC Registration Services Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > Hello Members, > > I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with > requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. > > Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own > IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to > routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things > going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. > Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges > and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. > > After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI > /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently > becoming something ridiculous. > > Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced > up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being > assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use > and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much > IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. > > Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's > administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be > used on the servers. > > Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us > or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself > since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not > intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract > base until he understands procedures) > > And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on > contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes > that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question > on how many servers are involved here. > > And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for > our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much > meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a > ridiculous amount of time and communication. > > As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good > technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own > PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean > towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business > in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that > a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has > *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). > > Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, > so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or > HOPING to see, but come on. > > I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously > going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a > routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on > why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my > customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller > chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this > customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. > > From president at ukraine.su Wed Jul 15 19:54:25 2009 From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:54:25 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <4A5E17D1.9010406@ukraine.su> Hello Jeroen, I see questions from NCC hostmaster you said were correct and adequate to the policy. I can understand why each question you said was asked. If you have no experience in PI/AS delegation, you can ask companies (like we are ;) ) specializing on this topic, and they can prepare the good request and deal with hostmasters' bueracracy. The only question is why they approve the AS request before PI one. Did you list your PA space in the AS request in prefix: field? Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > Hello Members, > > I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with > requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. > > Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his own > IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to > routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things > going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. > Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges > and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. > > After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the PI > /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently > becoming something ridiculous. > > Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be sliced > up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's are being > assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a customer would use > and if PA space is being returned. Questions (except for the 'how much > IP's will a customer use') I can understand and all answered. > > Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's > administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be > used on the servers. > > Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from us > or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR himself > since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something that's not > intended in the first place at all, we just administer it on a contract > base until he understands procedures) > > And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on > contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes > that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a question > on how many servers are involved here. > > And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for > our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much > meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a > ridiculous amount of time and communication. > > As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a good > technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants his own > PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business that lean > towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely no business > in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has and stating that > a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space (what if someone has > *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that happening.., ever). > > Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the future, > so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be expecting or > HOPING to see, but come on. > > I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is seriously > going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot give a > routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS important on > why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us AND for my > customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in smaller > chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on and this > customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) From jeroen at easyhosting.nl Thu Jul 16 10:00:32 2009 From: jeroen at easyhosting.nl (Jeroen Wunnink) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:00:32 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5DFC74.4030504@ripe.net> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DFC74.4030504@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A5EDE20.1080609@easyhosting.nl> Hi Laura, Thanks, I already got into a discussion with Alex Le Heux, the policy implementation coordinator. My initial mail is meant to open a bit of a discussion on questions asked for PI allocations, mainly because I had to pull customer and growth statistics from my own customer that were none of my business to be honest. The situation is so, that we're a fairly large hosting and colocation provider, not the biggest by far but we come a long way in the dutch market. We have several smaller customers that rent a bunch of 19" racks but are usually in the same market as we are. So when a customer becomes bigger, we try and help and give some pointers to for example start routing themselves. We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter) business. I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be allocated. I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses in the PI space', what's up with that ? This means that a customer with three SSL webshops and three IP's isn't allowed host his server in that PI range ? Also an eyebrow raiser : 'Your customer should become LIR himself'. So now I'd have to make up a story to justify a /21 for him (which he doesn't need yet) rather then a /24 + AS, which is the bare minimum to start routing on the internet ? I know it's all policy to hand out resources as good and honestly as possible, but (and this opinion is shared by more Dutch network operators I spoke with today) requesting PI space feels like pulling teeth and takes up far too much time like this. Laura Cobley wrote: > Dear Jeroen, Florian and all, > > The RIPE NCC has an internal escalation procedure for handling > concerns about the way your request has been handled. You can ask for > any request to be escalated by sending an email to hostmaster at ripe.net > and quoting the relevant NCC# ticket number. Your request will then be > reviewed and assessed by senior staff. > > If your concern is of a more serious nature, please refer to the RIPE > NCC's Conflict Arbitration Procedure available online at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/arbitration.html > > Regards, > > Laura Cobley > RIPE NCC Registration Services > > > Jeroen Wunnink wrote: >> Hello Members, >> >> I'd like to state a complaint toward overly complicated issues with >> requesting PI space as a LIR for a customer. >> >> Situation: I have a customer who's purchased a router and wants his >> own IP space+AS number to start multihoming. Since he's pretty new to >> routing and policies of RIPE and managing the database to keep things >> going, we as LIR offered him to do this for him at the startup phase. >> Currently he'll be hosting several services from within our PA ranges >> and will start growing his new resources in the PI space he wants. >> >> After filling in the request forms, his AS got approved pending the >> PI /24 range assignment. And that's been a process that's currently >> becoming something ridiculous. >> >> Initially I got some return questions on how the subnets would be >> sliced up, what would be used for management of the routers, if IP's >> are being assigned statically or dynamically, how much IP's a >> customer would use and if PA space is being returned. Questions >> (except for the 'how much IP's will a customer use') I can understand >> and all answered. >> >> Then in a follow-up I got asked what the montly growth is, who's >> administratively responsible for the IP's and how they're going to be >> used on the servers. >> >> Then in a next follow up I got pointed to using PA space either from >> us or a different provider or that the customer should become LIR >> himself since we as LIR cannot sub-allocate PI space. (something >> that's not intended in the first place at all, we just administer it >> on a contract base until he understands procedures) >> >> And then after explaining that we will only help the customer on >> contract base and not sub-allocate anything, another follow-up comes >> that no customer can use more then 1 or 2 IP's and once again a >> question on how many servers are involved here. >> >> And that's where I'm at now. I've been trying to request PI space for >> our customer since last friday, and in my opinion there's too much >> meddling into internal business by RIPE here and this is taking a >> ridiculous amount of time and communication. >> >> As a LIR we hand out IP space responsibly to our customers, for a >> good technical and administrative reason we have a customer who wants >> his own PI assignment and I'm asking him questions about his business >> that lean towards a company secret. In my opinion RIPE has absolutely >> no business in asking how many customers and/or servers someone has >> and stating that a customer can not use >2 IP's in that PI space >> (what if someone has *gasp* 3 SSL websites ?, I cannot imagine that >> happening.., ever). >> >> Also neither we or our customer has a crystal ball to see in the >> future, so sure I can tell the amount of customer growth I'll be >> expecting or HOPING to see, but come on. >> >> I know IPv4 space must be handed out responsibly, but this is >> seriously going too far, especially for a LIR. Supposedly I cannot >> give a routing-reason for requesting PI space, but part of that IS >> important on why I'm requesting it. It's really not desirable for us >> AND for my customer to chop out a part of my PA space and announce in >> smaller chunks from his own AS on the same exchange points we're on >> and this customer is NOT at the stage yet to become a full LIR himself. >> >> -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl From slz at baycix.de Thu Jul 16 10:26:38 2009 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:26:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <4A5EDE20.1080609@easyhosting.nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DFC74.4030504@ripe.net> <4A5EDE20.1080609@easyhosting.nl> Message-ID: <4A5EE43E.2090105@baycix.de> Hi, Jeroen Wunnink schrieb: [...] > Also an eyebrow raiser : 'Your customer should become LIR himself'. > So now I'd have to make up a story to justify a /21 for him (which he > doesn't need yet) rather then a /24 + AS, which is the bare minimum to > start routing on the internet ? [...] you don't need to justify anything to get your /21 Allocation if you become a LIR. It's an ALLOCATION, not an ASSIGNMENT. Don't always mix those two up, totally different things. It's way more simple than requesting PI Assignments if you are a an ISP/Provider yourself. LIR with PA Allocations == Provider/ISPs Customer with PI Assignments == Endusers, not distributing IP space to 3rd parties If your customer is not an enduser but got customers themselves, they should become LIR on their own behalf. I actually don't see the problem. But of course things can be changed, the policy process is open. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From andrea at ripe.net Thu Jul 16 16:53:29 2009 From: andrea at ripe.net (Andrea Cima) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:53:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available Message-ID: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources ? Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered. The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpfPukACgkQXOgsmPkFrjNlEwCcDtE364DhQCU0USBoK3kJhord yBgAoMbRsLFCStkXfvEaV6Mtm5b2sfxW =fKC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From davidm at futureinquestion.net Thu Jul 16 21:08:35 2009 From: davidm at futureinquestion.net (David Monosov) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:08:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> References: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A5F7AB3.1020700@futureinquestion.net> Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, >From the document: [...] 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User. [...] IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database would have been a legal adventure. With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable to their cause on foreign end users? Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were provided with? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources  Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC From sander at steffann.nl Thu Jul 16 22:01:09 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:01:09 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space In-Reply-To: <016801ca0615$266518c0$732f4a40$@nl> References: <4A5DC542.4050908@easyhosting.nl> <4A5DFC74.4030504@ripe.net> <4A5EDE20.1080609@easyhosting.nl> <4A5F210D.1020200@easyhosting.nl> <016801ca0615$266518c0$732f4a40$@nl> Message-ID: Hello Mark, > If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and > give > clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)). PI policy explicitly states that PI space can not be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 . Any organisation that needs address space for its customers must use PA space. The definition of an LIR is that it assigns address space to its customers. PI space is (per definition) only to be used by the company that requested it itself. > It is also in my > opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information. > The > should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for > example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to > get PI. In this case it doesn't matter. That the company needs address space for *any* customers indicates that PI space is not appropriate and PA space should be used. The company uses address space for customers and therefore must become an LIR. I think it is now time to stop this discussion, at least on the address policy mailing list. This discussion is not leading to a viable policy proposal. Thanks, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Sun Jul 19 07:41:37 2009 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:41:37 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20090719083927.04ec5fe8@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote: I believe 90 days is not enough time from the time RIPE NCC contacts the end user and for them to decide whether to migrate the resource to a LIR or sign an end user contract with RIPE and do all the paperwork and payments. May I suggest making it 6 months? -Hank >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >[Apologies for duplicate emails] > >Dear Colleagues, > >The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: >ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources ? Contractual >Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > >This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in >the contractual relationship between the End User of independent >Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry >(LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may >de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to >those resources once they are de-registered. > >The new document is available at: >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > >Kind regards, > >Andrea Cima >RIPE NCC >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > >iEYEARECAAYFAkpfPukACgkQXOgsmPkFrjNlEwCcDtE364DhQCU0USBoK3kJhord >yBgAoMbRsLFCStkXfvEaV6Mtm5b2sfxW >=fKC3 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shane at time-travellers.org Tue Jul 21 13:44:08 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:44:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A5F7AB3.1020700@futureinquestion.net> References: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> <4A5F7AB3.1020700@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <1248176648.4763.3345.camel@shane-asus-laptop> David, On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:08 +0200, David Monosov wrote: > Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, > > From the document: > > [...] > > 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract > > The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case > of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court > order; or > > Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation > of RIPE Policy by the End User. > > [...] > > IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, > but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the > hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? > > RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times > have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a > direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely > served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database > would have been a legal adventure. > > With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and > the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user > and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an > enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable > to their cause on foreign end users? > > Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not > the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling > on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were > provided with? All that this says is that the RIPE NCC is bound by Dutch law, which was always the case, with or without a contract. Someone could always take the RIPE NCC to court, in the Netherlands or in any other jurisdiction on the planet that will accept the case. Remember, the point of this endeavor is to identify who is responsible for any given assignment. This should result in less legal pain, not more. -- Shane From shane at time-travellers.org Tue Jul 21 13:44:08 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:44:08 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A5F7AB3.1020700@futureinquestion.net> References: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> <4A5F7AB3.1020700@futureinquestion.net> Message-ID: <1248176648.4763.3345.camel@shane-asus-laptop> David, On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:08 +0200, David Monosov wrote: > Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg, > > From the document: > > [...] > > 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract > > The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case > of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court > order; or > > Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation > of RIPE Policy by the End User. > > [...] > > IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, > but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the > hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? > > RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times > have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a > direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely > served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database > would have been a legal adventure. > > With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and > the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user > and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an > enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable > to their cause on foreign end users? > > Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not > the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling > on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were > provided with? All that this says is that the RIPE NCC is bound by Dutch law, which was always the case, with or without a contract. Someone could always take the RIPE NCC to court, in the Netherlands or in any other jurisdiction on the planet that will accept the case. Remember, the point of this endeavor is to identify who is responsible for any given assignment. This should result in less legal pain, not more. -- Shane From michiel at klaver.it Mon Jul 27 14:37:22 2009 From: michiel at klaver.it (Michiel Klaver) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:37:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> References: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4A6D9F82.8000400@klaver.it> At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources  Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC >From the document: The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional From mark at streamservice.nl Mon Jul 27 14:53:58 2009 From: mark at streamservice.nl (Stream Service || Mark Scholten) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:53:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available In-Reply-To: <4A6D9F82.8000400@klaver.it> References: <4A5F3EE9.1070603@ripe.net> <4A6D9F82.8000400@klaver.it> Message-ID: <014c01ca0eb9$4f08dd00$ed1a9700$@nl> Hello Michiel, They could first try to receive a response by email. If they don't get that response (and a response that is not from a human person isn't good enough) they could send the papers by postal mail. This way they could try to reduce the costs for the contact. It also depends on when the resources where given to the person/organization using it. Rules regarding emails and legal binding are changing. With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Klaver Sent: maandag 27 juli 2009 14:37 To: Andrea Cima Cc: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net; 'Address Policy Working Group' Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate emails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: > ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources  Contractual > Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" > > This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in > the contractual relationship between the End User of independent > Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry > (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may > de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to > those resources once they are de-registered. > > The new document is available at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html > > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC >From the document: The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional