June 2015 - address-policy-wg

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