June 2015 - address-policy-wg

2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Nov '15

07 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for version 2.0 of the policy proposal 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" has now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - AS Numbers can now be assigned for any need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS Number - The RIPE NCC's need evaluation has been removed - A limit of 1,000 AS Numbers per organisation has been added - There is now a requirement that 16-bit AS Numbers be multihomed after nine months - The requirement that the routing policy must be new and unique has been removed - Related wording adjustments in the summary and rationale of the proposal You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03 And the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-03/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 January 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

16 41

2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 7 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

22 21

"ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED"
by Enno Rey 02 Jul '15

02 Jul '15

Hi, some of you might already cringe just from this mail's subject ;-) I'm currently involved in handling some netblocks which are in "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" state and this turns out to be surprisingly difficult, even in cases where both organizations (that is the LIR holding the covering aggregate and the organization which received the "more specific" PI assignment back in the 90s) apparently agree on a course of action. My impression is that these difficulties not least arise as seemingly no policy exists on "how to convert those assignments into 'ASSIGNED PI' or 'ALLOCATED PA' space". I'm aware that these netblocks might only be "remnant corner cases" totally irrelevant to the majority of the community. Which brings me to the following questions: a) do any of you "feel the same pain" when it comes to these blocks? b) do you think a policy proposal should be prepared how to handle those? I'm willing to prepare sth. c) what could such a proposal look like? What do those concerned think how a reasonable way of moving those blocks into a "stable state" can be identified/described. many thanks in advance for any type of feedback. everybody have a pleasant evening Enno -- Enno Rey ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey ======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

Hi Although this is the last call, and I have been criticizing the usefulness of this proposal in protecting the remained IPv4, I am not still logically replied. Those questions were: 1- How can we prevent transfers by accepting this proposal? We can always transfer by taking ownership of the sellers company. So this proposal would not be beneficial at all. 2- According to the 1st question, and knowing that , there are some dealers who get IP's from RIPE NCC and sell them to customers, Why wouldn’t RIPE NCC sell the IP's directly to them? (By allowing those companies to register new LIR and get new /22). 3- Obviously the internet is increasing and companies need more IP's, and there are some other IP's available in RIPE NCC, Why shouldn't we use them? The people won't think about IPv6 seriously unless they see there is no other IPv4. 4- If people are unable to transfer IP's. They will lend them. (The proposal won't help again) I would be glad to add my arguments to Sander's conclusion. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers
by Manager 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

Agree, propousal is not good. There ara lot of facts about it. If propousal will be accepted it s good idea to publish current stats at public and compare situation after 6, 12, 24 months. Becouse free ipv4 at ripe is growing. It's better to make ipv4 easy to get. Lets say give new lir /21 but not /22. Then a lot of companies who has ip space not in use prefer to transfer it. And space will be more fair redistributed between members. And any limits on transfers are not good too. Then situation will be controled by members, but not ripe. Yuri@ip4market Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Shahin Gharghi <shahin(a)gharghi.ir> Дата: 29.06.2015 22:16 (GMT+02:00) Кому: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Тема: [address-policy-wg] We need IPv4 transfers Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years… So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them, so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be important to reserve more and more again…. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP’s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal’s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi

3 2

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years… So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them, so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be important to reserve more and more again…. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP’s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal’s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

We need IPv4 transfers
by Shahin Gharghi 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

Dear group members Hi ! I am seriously against this proposal, because it won't be able to stop making financial profit out of IPv4. First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years… So do you think that we should still care about it?! Knowing that these IP's are valuable, I think that they must belong to RIPE NCC's members and it is their right to have them, so We should make a policy to increase the startup fees or get new entrants , to pay for the whole year fee or transfer fee, and this way it helps us reduce the annual fee of other LIR's and prevent from the unnecessary transfers. On the other hand, it should be considered, that if people are not be able to sell the IP's, they will lend them to others with high rates and therefore they can make financial profits again. Above all, you know that, we have reserved a lot of IP's before ( Multicast, Class E, private ranges and etc.) and I think, it should not be important to reserve more and more again…. They are supposed to be used oneday, since no one would need IPv4 after implementing IPv6. The people, who are in need of IP’s would have no other choice to buy, I would like to know the proposal’s solution for this problem? The most abusers have gotten IP's before 2012 and have already sold most of them, moreover, there is a bug, you can transfer the IP's by taking ownership of the whole organization and I found these transfers useful, because anyone who needs IP would be able to buy it, otherwise how RIPE NCC can fairly distribute IP's ? In the end, I would like to ask those LIR's that have recently joined us and need more IP, not to be shy and courageously tell us about their opinions. -- Shahin Gharghi

12 27

IPv6 PI assignment policy
by Thomas Drewermann 28 Jun '15

28 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, we recently requested an IPv6 assingment on behalf of one Freifunk Community in germany. They wanted to be indipendent from us and to take routing decisions on their own. As they are a freifunk community some of the PI assigment would be used to lease addresses to clients/users. According to NCC the policy currently doesn't permit usage of PI space. Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases. I'd like to propose a change of the policy to allow PI addresses to be used for clients which don't belong the assigment-holder. This clients are connecting to networks which use address space of the holders PI assignment e.g. via wifi. The difference between an assignment is that there is a single address provided to walk in wifi users rather than a whole subnet delegated for usage by the connecting client/user/customer. How do you think about that situation? What would be your thoughts on such a proposal? Regards Thomas Drewermann Freifunk Rheinland e.V.

9 17

What's going on
by Petr Umelov 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

2015-06-24 14:37 GMT+03:00 Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>: > Dear colleagues, > > Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and the > stage each has reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). > > If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so > on the relevant working group mailing list. > PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" > OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can only be > re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC > can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the transfer > requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations. > RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% of > the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after they have > been allocated. But there were several calculations showing that the part of the transfers from the last /8 is less than 3% There are facts but europeens somehow don't see them. > STATUS: Last Call > WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > DEADLINE: 21 July 2015 > FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 > > > We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. > > Kind regards, > > Marco Schmidt > RIPE Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov

1 1

Consensus on 2015-01
by Sander Steffann 22 Jun '15

22 Jun '15

Hello working group, Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they supported the proposal. These included: - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of the final /8 policy - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: - Andre Keller - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) - Carsten Brückner (after deadline) - Carsten Schiefner - Christopher Kunz - Daniel Suchy - Dimitri I Sidelnikov - Erik Bais - Florian Bauhaus - Garry Glendown - Gerald Krause - Havard Eidnes - Herve Clement - Jan Ingvoldstad - Jens Ott - Marius Catrangiu - Martin Millnert (after deadline) - Mick O Donovan - Ondřej Caletka - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN - Riccardo Gori - Richard Hartmann - Robert Sleigh - Sebastian Wiesinger - Thomas Schallar - Tim Kleefass - Tom Smyth (after deadline) - Tore Anderson - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) - Vladislav Potapov David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the final /8. The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a retroactive change are: - Sascha Luck - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and this policy proposal is no different. There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not have much weight in my analysis. There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) - Aleksey Bulgakov - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) - Borhan Habibi - Ciprian Nica - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) - Petr Umelov - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy proposal authors. There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership cost per member to increase. These were: - Ciprian Nica - Sergey Stecenko - Storch Matei - Vladimir Andreev The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented.". Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: - Ciprian Nica - Storch Matei In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 pool seems short as it is. Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. Sincerely, Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

1 2

2015-01 Last Call for Comments (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 22 Jun '15

22 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations", is now in its Concluding Phase. The Address Policy Working Group co-Chair has declared that rough consensus for the proposal has been reached and it will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of these coming four weeks of Last Call is to give the community the opportunity to present well-justified objections in case anyone missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 21 July 2015 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the co-Chairs of all RIPE Working Groups for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 21 July 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-02 New Policy Proposal (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Marco Schmidt 14 Jun '15

14 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 13 May 2015. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

31 31

Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
by Arash Naderpour 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hi Yuri, In some countries (Like Iran) IPv6 deployments is not an option at the moment (or new future) as the regulatory and authorities do not allow to use it. (and the only backbone provider has no IPv6 to offer to ISPs). So some Iranian ISPs have to buy IPv4 from other LIRs mostly based in other countries (approx. 1milion IP per year) to be able to meet their network growth needs. (Iran has 80milion population while the total IPv4 allocations is around 10milion) I think that redistributing additional blocks from the last /8 should be based on some additional criteria and not every LIR should be entitled to receive it. (for example if the first /22 has been sold by the LIR, no additional block as the LIR has not a real need for that) Developing countries with no IPv6 option have to use IPv4, the current policies forced them to become a buyer and that create a good IPv4 market. I support the idea of letting them receive additional blocks from RIPE NCC directly for their own use. Regards, Arash Naderpour Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:55:36 +0300 From: Staff <office(a)ip4market.ru> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Message-ID: <5579CB98.2020505(a)ip4market.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri

6 12

New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Ingrid Wijte 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA on 11 June 2015. 202240-203263 203264-204287 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Complaint and future of the APWG.
by Lu Heng 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: *"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the* *last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is anotherexample of this). There is not really anything we in address policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"* He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: *"Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but thatis the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeedmake the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."* While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: *"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.* *Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:* *1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.* *2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.* *Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.* *Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.* *And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."* >From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to > > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) > > to stop. Can you also do something about it? > > As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. > > I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency > and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a > stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs > use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not > stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

14 25

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Marco Schmidt 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

47 146

Next steps for new LIRs
by David Huberman 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation

10 11

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Borhan Habibi 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem -1 to this proposal

15 35

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
by Callum Stuart 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Hello, One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his “own account” ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ? Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for the speculation. Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net) > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) > 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Elvis Daniel Velea) > 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Silvia Hagen) > 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Hannigan, Martin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 > From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie (mailto:nick@inex.ie)> > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com (mailto:randy@psg.com)>, Sascha Luck <apwg(a)c4inet.net (mailto:apwg@c4inet.net)> > Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC > Message-ID: <55784397.1050704(a)inex.ie (mailto:55784397.1050704@inex.ie)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: > > what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few > > thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy > > affecting millions internet users. > > > > > ~980m. > > Nick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009(a)velea.eu (mailto:557846B3.1010009@velea.eu)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked > you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday > telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to > make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks > against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making > > > accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved > > > this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision > > > about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I > > only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene > > but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong > assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression > that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all > the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because > their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have > if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false > assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was > unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members > may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE > NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and > I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation > received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation > (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have > received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, > you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the > tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including > the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can > not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you > would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict > others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs > have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were > at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you > decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice > any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me > (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs > from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I > > > have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the > > requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that > found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as > with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you > by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is > helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict > of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one > single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you > started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the > allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know > (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no > single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second > IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise > you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have > wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly > or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity > at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind > of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> > To: "elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)" <elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C84FB0@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > Silvia > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > the requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 > From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)akamai.com (mailto:marty@akamai.com)> > To: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7(a)akamai.com (mailto:E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> wrote: > > > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > > > Silvia > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > > > Hi Ciprian, > > > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > [...] > > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > > > [...] > > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > > the requests). > > > > > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > > > and before that you said: > > > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > > > only to then say: > > > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > > > > > > > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > > > Ciprian > > /elvis > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 > ************************************************* > >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by dan 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Only people who would object are those who wana exploit the system! If i did this in 1995 > i would be loaded! I still have my 'rose tinted glasses on' Feeling old! RIPE.. this needs to stop! Danial Subhani Pro-Net Internet Services Ltd <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published </div><div> </div>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! You are against ripe members? Not speakeing anout 185.x right now. Its globaly. Why to make it harder? The policy you try to applay will not help you goal. You should assist and try to help people to get ips that they need for business if ripe have them with some faer puporse. Current ip ranges are very small and may not care on big owners who use lot of ip networs like /16 /15 and etc. Ripe should take more care on database and better take back ips that were get from ripe somehow with strange puporses. I dont see any good idea here. It will even not help one companies to help other companies to arrange needed ip amount. If you think you should resist ip redistrebution and interfere geting ips legaly from ripe may be better lets stop IP distribution at all and close ripe? Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. Ever if you read the propousal puporse you will undersnand that it will not help, even if it happen nothing strange will happen. But the result that will be published later will confirm that you where wrong. Please give some days for discussion if that possible. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian(a)karotte.org> Дата: 10.06.2015 16:12 (GMT+02:00) Кому: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published * ripe(a)ntx.ru <ripe(a)ntx.ru> [2015-06-10 15:00]: > Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. > "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will > not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies > rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not > important and not against other members or people. The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. > In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult > some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help > people and companies. So you will get opposite result. In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. > I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive > doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we > need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not > against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? > We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours > later we have today database update and can show fresh information. > Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. > > We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

I got information from some persons from this emailing list that 185 will end up in 3 month and links to ripe stats. Its not correct. I show the lir reg stats and blocks allocations. Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 2013 1844 1888256 12% 83% 14091264 2014 2472 2537472 16% 67% 11553792 2015 1154 1202176 8% 59% 10351616 Total: 6249 6425600 39% 61% 10351616 Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012-9 195 199680 1.19% 98.81% 16577536 2012-10 212 217088 1.29% 97.52% 16360448 2012-11 208 212992 1.27% 96.25% 16147456 2012-12 164 167936 1% 95.25% 15979520 2013-1 196 200704 1.2% 94.05% 15778816 2013-2 145 148480 0.89% 93.16% 15630336 2013-3 154 157696 0.94% 92.22% 15472640 2013-4 167 171008 1.02% 91.2% 15301632 2013-5 144 147456 0.88% 90.32% 15154176 2013-6 136 139264 0.83% 89.49% 15014912 2013-7 156 159744 0.95% 88.54% 14855168 2013-8 136 139264 0.83% 87.71% 14715904 2013-9 129 132096 0.79% 86.92% 14583808 2013-10 188 192512 1.15% 85.77% 14391296 2013-11 144 147456 0.88% 84.89% 14243840 2013-12 149 152576 0.91% 83.98% 14091264 2014-1 145 148480 0.89% 83.09% 13942784 2014-2 170 174080 1.04% 82.05% 13768704 2014-3 192 196608 1.17% 80.88% 13572096 2014-4 240 245760 1.46% 79.42% 13326336 2014-5 205 209920 1.25% 78.17% 13116416 2014-6 188 193536 1.15% 77.02% 12922880 2014-7 209 214016 1.28% 75.74% 12708864 2014-8 186 190464 1.14% 74.6% 12518400 2014-9 190 195584 1.17% 73.43% 12322816 2014-10 249 254976 1.52% 71.91% 12067840 2014-11 238 243712 1.45% 70.46% 11824128 2014-12 260 270336 1.61% 68.85% 11553792 2015-1 228 235520 1.4% 67.45% 11318272 2015-2 237 242688 1.45% 66% 11075584 2015-3 302 316416 1.89% 64.11% 10759168 2015-4 290 299008 1.78% 62.33% 10460160 2015-5 97 108544 0.65% 61.68% 10351616 Please take a view. You can see that in 2015 approx the same amount of ips will be allocated to new lirs. And ips is enought for some years! Anycase free ips at ripe are growing. So ripe should make the ip usage price (lir fees less) or give more IPs (lets say 2048) to one lir and help people work but not make market from ips. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> Дата: 10.06.2015 19:04 (GMT+02:00) Кому: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. 10.06.2015, 18:59, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled(a)gmail.com>:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, ripe(a)ntx.ru <ripe(a)ntx.ru> wrote: Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. ... Please give some days for discussion if that possible. You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/00044… Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry.-- Jan -- With best regards, Vladimir AndreevGeneral director, QuickSoft LLCTel: +7 903 1750503

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Lu Heng 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. *"* *Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 <http://5.132.0.0/16> - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 <http://5.224.0.0/15> - allocated on 06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out formillions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders ofthe last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands."* My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then bribe people. You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Carsten Schiefner) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (LIR (BIT I 5)) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Mikael Abrahamsson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 > From: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de> > To: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705(a)schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Vladimir, > > On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. > > first of all, I am not angry. > > I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these > see-through non-arguments. > > Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt > to blurr this discussion. > > Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to > a proposal and objecting to it. > > In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the > proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up > with. > > In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear > reasons for it. > > It is really that simple. > > > P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch > > Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support > > his statements. > > I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the > fuzz. > > Thanks and best, > > -C. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the > people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. > > Let me give you an example: > > - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 > - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 > - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 > > All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that > time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 > deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 > and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for > such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). > > Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is > now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for > millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of > the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC > noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything > about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I > said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll > have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in > Netherlands. > > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to > set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. > There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and > aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating > gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of > stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not > transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see > a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The > default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar > requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered > will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer > becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and > needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently > disappear. > > If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe > we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not > waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems. > > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no > positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while > the problems might become worse. > > Ciprian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000 > From: "LIR (BIT I 5)" <LIR(a)bva.bund.de> > To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: > <C9593F67FE4B1342BBC009DF73251B2C8D6BFA1F(a)S01KR974.intern.dir> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi@all, > +1 for Jens > +1 for the proposal 2015-01 > Kind regards, > Carsten Br?ckner > LIR de.government > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > > Hi Borhan, > Hi List, > > hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while > I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... > > Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because > I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" > gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused > exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing > into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy > which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing > the community! > > To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change > only appear more important. > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set > up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There > is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. > If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways > between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger > version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And > they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not > requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all > resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue > for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers > obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most > cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that > discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the > community actually want something much more restrictive! > > BR Jens > > > Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h(a)gmail.com>: > >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > > > >-1 to this proposal > > > > > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo(a)opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> > To: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506100936040.9487(a)uplift.swm.pp.se> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > > use and they can't give up on it. > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > > that would be a real benefit. > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > help. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100 > From: Tom Smyth <tom.smyth(a)wirelessconnect.eu> > To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: > <CAJ3iMJQ=1eL-0KoCXko1pfTUzs_jnOGCXU= > VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > We @ as198988 support the proposal ... > Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions > that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin > contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for > years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. > > I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as > possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with > an ability to create backward compatible translation systems > > +1 mofos > On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > >> use and they can't give up on it. > >> > > > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. > > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > >> that would be a real benefit. > >> > > > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this > space, > > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount > > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M > EUR > > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people > do > > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on > this > > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them > they > > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So > > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > > help. > > > > -- > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > > >

10 18

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Greetings! "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not important and not against other members or people. In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help people and companies. So you will get opposite result. I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not against it! I am not offen here, but I keep helping people to understand ripe rulls. We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours later we have today database update and can show fresh information. Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Saeed, I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for 2 years for the new /22 blocks. Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. Regards, Arash Naderpour

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Erik, It may increase the cost or make it make less attractive, but I believe it would be just a temporary affect. Making less attractive is not a good argument to support it (to me) Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Erik Bais [mailto:erik@bais.name] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:48 AM To: Arash Naderpour; 'Gert Doering' Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Arash, > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up > one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year > restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

-1 to this proposal. Regards, Arash Naderpour

4 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
by Lu Heng 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Ciprian: I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up 100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality here and everybody have to deal with it. And for the /22, I fully support the policy and I believe such abuse should not happen. and such abuse practically turns the last /8 policy useless. If we should allow such abuse then why shouldn't we just completely deplete the IPv4 instead of reserving the last /8. One thing do worries me though, by doing a simple math: (2000+1600+1600)/1000=5.2Euro/IP in cost, if future IP price reaches 10 Euro or up, we might still not able to stop such abuse, unless we make the last /22 totally untransferable. Just my two cents. With regards. Lu On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Garry Glendown) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Opteamax GmbH) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Tore Anderson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 6. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200 > From: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774365.9050801(a)nethinks.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Guten Tag, > > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > > is not equal to solving the problem. > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > available anymore ... > > -garry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577442D.7060903(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > > On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > > >>>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > >>> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of > >>> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about > policies > >>> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job > >>> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are > >>> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > >> Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions > >> that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will > >> push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be > >> IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many > >> will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a > decision. > > OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting > > yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 > > deployment. > > As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 > exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass > to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think > it's usefull to elaborate on that. > > >> Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported > >> by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In > >> a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there > >> would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from > >> those who don't use them, that would really help. > > But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to > > reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just > > by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go > away. > > Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of > previous policies. > > I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed > everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. > I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. > > As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help > conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by > adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to > polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. > > Ciprian Nica > IP Broker Ltd. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200 > From: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <55774531.9050009(a)opteamax.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > > I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > > -- > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo(a)opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200 > From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> > To: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <20150609215957.407aba88(a)envy.fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Ciprian, > > * Ciprian Nica > > > What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > > > To summarize the effects will be : > > - higher membership fees > > Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the > membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. > > [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 > > The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining > in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to > stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would > not reverse this trend. > > Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay > the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that > means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to > increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much > better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs > and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to > *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep > paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as > possible. > > > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? > > The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has > been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. > > [4] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovere… > > This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, > and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it > (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is > not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any > significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). > > So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue > to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool > in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start > seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. > > For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 > days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has > been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on > the other hand only 425,625 addresses. > > So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a > valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten > years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus > whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. > > Tore > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <557745F7.8060102(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get > affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their > investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy > will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > Guten Tag, > >> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > >> is not equal to solving the problem. > > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > > available anymore ... > > > > -garry > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Jens, > > I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was > announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that > only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought > something is wrong. > > I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs > but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart > enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. > > If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking > back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s > should be somehow persuaded to give them back. > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > use and they can't give up on it. > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > that would be a real benefit. > > UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs > and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the > last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the > elefants. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > >> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > >> I'll fully support it. > > > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > > not being really used for a while. > > > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > > > Best regards > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20 > ************************************************* > --

1 0

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published be mailing list
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve the problem

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Gerald K. 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

You're right, I meant "we from AS20783". I thought this was clear. -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". > > 09.06.2015, 16:26, "Gerald K." <gerald(a)ax.tc>: >> After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! >> >> -- >> Gerald (AS20783) >> >> Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >>> Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >>> >>> The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >>> >>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 >>> >>> and the draft document at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft >>> >>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >>> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Marco Schmidt >>> Policy Development Officer >>> RIPE NCC > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 >

1 0

FW: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I'm completely for the proposal and think that it could bring some initial intentions in place with reality. +1 Regards, Vladislav Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andre Keller Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:31 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André

1 0

policy 2015-1
by Amir Mohsenian 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 3

-1 for 2015-1
by پیمان پورحکاک 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

hi policy 2015-1 not good and me -1 for policy

2 1

I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

(no subject)
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

-1 I cannot support this proposal.( 2015-01)

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by listas 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-02 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation)
by Mathew Newton 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

On 08/06/2015 14:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI > When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" has been published. Fully support.

1 0

2015-03 Draft Document and Impact Analysis will be produced (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
by Marco Schmidt 05 Jun '15

05 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The discussion period for the proposal described in 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" has ended. A new draft document and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis will now be prepared for review. We will publish the documents shortly and we will make an announcement. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0