- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 status hierarchies
by Stephane.Dodeller＠swisscom.com 05 Oct '20

05 Oct '20

Dear Denis, Since the workaround you mention creates entries in the database that do not match in some cases the reality of what has been done (and allowed by the policy), especially during the ALLOCATED-UNSPECIFIED cleanup period, I support the change you mention. Best regards Stéphane Dodeller Swisscom (ch.unisource) Le 05.10.20 16:48, « address-policy-wg au nom de address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net » <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net au nom de address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> a écrit : Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 14:45:44 +0000 (UTC) From: "ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 status hierarchies Message-ID: <1260079472.3251832.1601909144595(a)mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Colleagues I was about to post this to the DB-WG but it may be more appropriate to include it as part of this discussion... Yet another 4 year old NWI that needs to be progressed or closed. The details are here:https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.… In summary it concerns the assignment of a whole allocation. Because the range is the primary key (pkey) in the database you cannot have an allocation object and an assignment object with the same pkey. A common work around is to split the allocation and make two assignments. The suggestion is to allow "status:" to be a multiple attribute. This could be done quite easily and constrained in it's use by business rules in the database software. So the syntax could be changed in INET(6)NUM objects to:status:? ? ? ? ?[mandatory]? [multiple]? ? ?[ ] The business rules could make this multiple option only allowed in very limited situations. For example if an INETNUM object has 'status: ALLOCATED PA' it could be possible to add a second value 'status: ASSIGNED PA' or 'status: SUB-ALLLOCATED PA'. If the status in an INET6NUM object is 'status: ALLOCATED-BY-RIR' it could be possible to add a second value 'status: ALLOCATED-BY-LIR' or 'status: ASSIGNED'. The business rules could prevent any other multiple status values. The "descr:" attribute is already multiple so it can describe both the allocation and the assignment. Is this still considered to be an issue? cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG On Monday, 5 October 2020, 16:13:53 CEST, Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> wrote: Dear WG,? I want to bring the following email and questions of our PDO - Petrit Hasani to your attention that might have slipped over the vacation period.? Please have a look at this discussion again and provide input if you can.? Regards, Erik Bais Co-chair AP-WG. ( on behalf of the AP-WG Chair collective ) ?On 02/07/2020, 13:36, "address-policy-wg on behalf of Petrit Hasani" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of phasani(a)ripe.net> wrote: ? ? Dear colleagues, ? ? ? ? Thank you to everyone who responded to our earlier questions on the intent of the policy regarding IPv4 status hierarchies. ? ? ? ? While this was helpful, it would be great if we could have input from a wider group of people: ? ? ? ? - Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another? ? ? - Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation? ? ? - Do we need a policy update? ? ? ? ? https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… ? ? ? ? We look forward to hearing from you. ? ? ? ? Cheers, ? ? -- ? ? Petrit Hasani ? ? Policy Officer ? ? RIPE NCC ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > On 16 Jun 2020, at 15:36, Petrit Hasani <phasani(a)ripe.net> wrote: ? ? > ? ? > Dear colleagues, ? ? > ? ? > We are reviewing IPv4 status hierarchies in the RIPE Database (looking at objects with the same status as their less-specifics). ? ? > ? ? > Some cases are clear - "ASSIGNED PA" shouldn't be allowed under "ASSIGNED PA", for example. Other statuses might need a closer look and we would like guidance from this working group. ? ? > ? ? > The RIPE Database does not currently have any limitations on creating inetnums that have the status "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" under inetnums with the same status. This often results in chains of inetnums that have the same status, sometimes ending with the sub-allocation of a single IP address. ? ? > ? ? > Although this might not seem useful at first glance, there might be practical uses for a few levels of sub-allocation. For example, a global company could give sub-allocations to its national branches, which make smaller sub-allocations to their multiple daughter companies. These daughter companies could then create and maintain assignments for their actual networks. ? ? > ? ? > However, this is not allowed under a strict reading of the policy, as only the LIR itself can make sub-allocations, and these must be used for assignments. ? ? > ? ? > Section 5.3 "Sub-allocations" of the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies (ripe-733) states: ? ? > ? ? > "Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation and can only be made from allocations with a status of "ALLOCATED PA". ? ? > ? ? > [...] ? ? > ? ? > LIRs may make sub-allocations to multiple downstream network operators." ? ? > ? ? > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.… ? ? > ? ? > Before making any changes, we want to be sure that we understand the intent of the policy and what the community wants us to do. Thus, we would like to hear from the Address Policy Working Group: ? ? > ? ? > - Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another? ? ? > - Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation? ? ? > - Do we need a policy update? ? ? > ? ? > We look forward to your guidance. ? ? > ? ? > Kind regards, ? ? > -- ? ? > Petrit Hasani ? ? > Policy Officer ? ? > RIPE NCC ? ? > ? ? > ? ? > ? ? > ? ? > ? ? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip…> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 108, Issue 2 *************************************************

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: A First for the RIPE NCC - Seizure of the “Right to Registration of IPv4 Addresses” for the Recovery of Money
by Alun Davies 02 Oct '20

02 Oct '20

Dear colleagues, We recently processed our first IPv4 transfer on the basis of a Dutch court order. In this RIPE Labs article, we provide an overview of the case and look at how things will work moving forwards: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ciaran_byrne/seizure-of-the-right-to-registra… Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 Transfer Markets Misuse: A First Look
by Mirjam Kuehne 17 Aug '20

17 Aug '20

Dear colleagues, In this article Vasileios Giotsas summarises the results of a detailed study of how transferred IPv4 prefixes are misused in the wild by synthesising an array of longitudinal IP blacklists, honeypot data, and AS reputation lists: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/vgiotsas/a-first-look-at-the-misuse-and-abuse… This research was supported by the RIPE NCC Projects Fund. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

2 1

WG: Question regarding RIPE-738 IPv6-Policy
by Kurt.Kayser＠bmi.bund.de 24 Jul '20

24 Jul '20

Dear RIPE members and community, We have come across a question of correct interpretation for "utilization" wthin´the current "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" RIPE-738 document: 5.2.2. Applied HD-Ratio The HD-Ratio value of 0.94 is adopted as indicating an acceptable address utilisation for justifying the allocation of additional address space. Appendix A provides a table showing the number of assignments that are necessary to achieve an acceptable utilisation value for a given address block size. [...] 10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio The utilisation threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /56 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as: T = 2((56-P)*HD) Thus, the utilisation threshold for an LIR requesting subsequent allocation of IPv6 address block is specified as a function of the prefix size and target HD ratio. This utilisation refers to the use of /56s as an efficiency measurement unit, and does not refer to the utilisation of addresses within those End Sites. It is an address allocation utilisation ratio and not an address assignment utilisation ratio. [...] The two underlined sentences seem to contradict each other. For a correct interpretation and calculation of the HD-Ratio/Utilization-Threshold (T) for IPv6-subsequent block eligibility, what is now correct "allocation" or "assignment" ? In the LIR-Portal there is an %-indication for "my own resources" which soley refers to assignments within a specific block. Allocations seem not to be considered. What is the correct way to calculcate the utilization? Best regards, on behalf Kurt Kayser _______________________ Kurt Kayser Konsultation im Auftrag des Referates SK 4 - Konzeption/ Local Internet Registry Bundesanstalt für den Digitalfunk der Behörden und Organisationen mit Sicherheitsaufgaben (BDBOS) Telefon: +49 (0) 1575-2634020 E-Mail: Kurt.Kayser(a)bmi.bund.de<mailto:Kurt.Kayser@bmi.bund.de> Internet: www.bdbos.bund.de<http://www.bmi.bund.de/>

2 2

LACNIC Inter-RIR Transfer Policy Implemented
by Nikolas Pediaditis 22 Jul '20

22 Jul '20

Dear colleagues, Yesterday, LACNIC announced that they have implemented their inter-RIR transfer policy: https://www.lacnic.net/4711/2/lacnic/lacnic-starts-processing-inter-rir-tra… This means that IPv4 addresses can now be transferred between organisations in the RIPE NCC and LACNIC regions (IPv6 and AS Numbers are excluded from LACNIC's inter-RIR transfer policy). You can find more information on inter-RIR transfers on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/int… It's worth noting that an inter-RIR transfer request should always start with the offering party via the "source" RIR that the resources are currently registered with. Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis Registration Services & Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 79 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Petrit Hasani 10 Jun '20

10 Jun '20

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 79 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-79-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

RIPE 80 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Petrit Hasani 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 80 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-80-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 80 Address Policy WG Draft Minutes
by Petrit Hasani 09 Jun '20

09 Jun '20

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 80 have now been published: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-80-address-policy-… Please let us know of any corrections or amendments. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Post on List
by Clear Writing Solutions 29 May '20

29 May '20

clearwriting123(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] policy compliance dashboard
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 14 May '20

14 May '20

Lack of response to who? The NCC? What benefit is this meant to bring? I'd assume the NCC would already know about members who aren't paying their bills or otherwise in breach of contractual obligations. Members who "care" will probably deal with issues and those who don't care won't start caring, so I'm struggling to see what value this brings Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com https://blacknight.blog / http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park, Sleaty Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 13/05/2020, 10:41, "address-policy-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg" <address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: After my comment in the Addressing Policy meeting, I decided to go ahead with this email, maybe it can a provocation for some inputs in the open mic ... Note that this text is from my AFRINIC proposal (to make it quick now), so disregard parts that may not correctly matches the RIPE NCC situation and may be some of the things are already done here. Text: ***** "The Policy Compliance Dashboard” shows to each member its status of policy compliance, collected by means of a periodical review, automated as much as possible. The dashboard will show all possible details to match the policies and RSA, such as: * Contractual obligations (such as status of payments or documents). * Lack of response from the member. * Unused or unannounced resources (where mandatory). * Unavailable or outdated Whois information. * Lack of maintenance of the reverse delegation. * Forbidden sub-assignments (from PI assignments). * Unauthorized transfers. * Tracking of repeated and/or continued policy violations. The dashboard automation will need to be accommodated along policies evolves thru the PDP, in order to display new details. The dashboard will automatically send notifications of the status of compliance to members, after each review or dashboard update. Reminders will be periodically sent in case of any lack of compliance. In this case, warnings will be also sent to the staff. ***** I've also the feeling that it may be more appropriate for Services WG, so copied as well. Any thoughts? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

2 2

policy compliance dashboard
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 May '20

13 May '20

After my comment in the Addressing Policy meeting, I decided to go ahead with this email, maybe it can a provocation for some inputs in the open mic ... Note that this text is from my AFRINIC proposal (to make it quick now), so disregard parts that may not correctly matches the RIPE NCC situation and may be some of the things are already done here. Text: ***** "The Policy Compliance Dashboard” shows to each member its status of policy compliance, collected by means of a periodical review, automated as much as possible. The dashboard will show all possible details to match the policies and RSA, such as: * Contractual obligations (such as status of payments or documents). * Lack of response from the member. * Unused or unannounced resources (where mandatory). * Unavailable or outdated Whois information. * Lack of maintenance of the reverse delegation. * Forbidden sub-assignments (from PI assignments). * Unauthorized transfers. * Tracking of repeated and/or continued policy violations. The dashboard automation will need to be accommodated along policies evolves thru the PDP, in order to display new details. The dashboard will automatically send notifications of the status of compliance to members, after each review or dashboard update. Reminders will be periodically sent in case of any lack of compliance. In this case, warnings will be also sent to the staff. ***** I've also the feeling that it may be more appropriate for Services WG, so copied as well. Any thoughts? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Elad Cohen 04 May '20

04 May '20

Gert, Please forgive me for missing that misleading reply of yours and I'm sure that you are interested to hear my response. (anyone can just skip to the last part, about our fake Chairman) --- "Calling someone "a Coconut" is definitely not the type of tone we want here. Stick to factual discussions, take the name-calling elsewhere." --- You are twisting the facts, it was the Coconut that started it all months ago at Nanog and also here in the Anti-Abuse Working Group. The coconut called me in many names over a period of months without a single proof against me - also in your working group - and you did nothing (if you are going to say: but the Coconut didn't say your name in our group - well he didn't but you could still say something). --- "Calling someone "a Coconut" is definitely not the type of tone we want here. Stick to factual discussions, take the name-calling elsewhere." --- I didn't hear you or anyone else writing anything to the Coconut in the many months that the Coconut defamed me without a single proof against me, only because I dared to stood up against the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project". --- Yes! I was so hoping for a new round of "Gert Doering is totally unworthy of being a WG chair". We haven't had this in a long while. --- You are not worth to be in any leading role when you make decisions based on connections and who you know. --- I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just trying to remind people of house rules. You are are calling names, and you are damaging your own reputation by repeatedly refusing to adhere to list etiquette aka "house rules". --- You didn't remind to the Coconut any of the house rules, you are just saying "we didn't know to whom the coconut refers and now we know and we will tell nothing to the coconut but we will not vote to the person that he referred to" - I hope that the readers see clearly what you are doing. And last but not least, because you are obviously interested that our Chairman will be re-elected and that is the only reason that you want to show to the readers why they shouldn't elect me, it is important to me to write the following lines to the readers: On 14th of April our Chairman supported the nomination of Maria Hall and another candidate in the following two links: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/agm-nominations/2020-April/000690.h… https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/agm-nominations/2020-April/000691.h… Then 15 minutes after it, Maria Hall supported the nomination of our Chairman in the following link: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/agm-nominations/2020-April/000692.h… But there is something strange in the description that Maria Hall wrote: The line "Reason for nominating the candidate:" appear twice right below each other: Reason for nominating the candidate: Reason for nominating the candidate: Christian is very active in the RIPE community, where he has attended every meeting for several years and is Co-Chair of the RIPE MAT WG. In the last four years, Christian served on the RIPE NCC Executive Board as Secretary and since 2018 is the Executive Board Chairman. Christian has shown very strong and positive leadership in his role as chair of the board and I know that, both in the present situation and in upcoming times, Christians leadership, dedication and passion will be absolutely necessary for RIPE NCC. This is because she did copy-paste, she did copy paste for the whole paragraph that was sent to her (including the title) from our respected Chairman that wrote it on himself, and all she did was copy-paste, is this what we want ? a fake Chairman ? look what he wrote on himself. Look how Gert is pushing that no change in the Board will be made. You are being manipulated dear readers. Please allow me repeat what our Chairman wrote on himself: "Christian has shown very strong and positive leadership in his role as chair of the board and I know that, both in the present situation and in upcoming times, Christians leadership, dedication and passion will be absolutely necessary for RIPE NCC" Is this the board that you want ? a fake board ? Who knows what is going on with the expenses, to where they are flowing, any request for detailed information of RIPE expenses is being redirected to these people in the Board that say that NDA is signed with all the suppliers. Can we trust them when they are cheating the community in such a way ? Gert, I'm asking from you not to take part in it and to cheat the community as well. Now Gert will probably moderate me so I will not write any other truth which is against his interests. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 1:33 PM To: Elad Cohen Cc: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette Hi, On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:16:41AM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > I didn't attack anyone, I only responded to a defamation post against me in your working group, which to it you didn't write anything. > > Ronald is aCoconut by many people, and he is defaming me and calling me > in names for many many months, including in the post in your own working > group - which you completely ignored As I said, it was not necessary to have a third WG chair repeat the same thing that Briand and Denis already said. Calling someone "a Coconut" is definitely not the type of tone we want here. Stick to factual discussions, take the name-calling elsewhere. (Note that Ronald did not mention your name at all, so it is very helpful that you make abundantly clear *who* he refers to, so we can do a much better informed executive board election). > - so this says a lot about yourself and about your title as a co-chair, Yes! I was so hoping for a new round of "Gert Doering is totally unworthy of being a WG chair". We haven't had this in a long while. > So go ahead, Gert, attack me once more in an unbalanced way. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just trying to remind people of house rules. You are are calling names, and you are damaging your own reputation by repeatedly refusing to adhere to list etiquette aka "house rules". Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 6

Policy Proposal Implemented: 2019-06 "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy"
by Petrit Hasani 30 Apr '20

30 Apr '20

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that we have implemented RIPE Policy Proposal 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy". This proposal aimed to remove obsoleted text and simplify the IPv6 policy. LIRs will no longer need to submit a request to the RIPE NCC to create IPv6 end site assignments larger than /48. The LIR will, however, need to justify such assignments should there be a RIPE NCC audit or when making a subsequent allocation request. The archived policy proposal can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06 The RIPE Document, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738 Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Draft agenda for the RIPE80 virtual AP-WG session.
by Erik Bais 29 Apr '20

29 Apr '20

Hi APWG folks, Below you can find a draft for the RIPE address policy WG meeting's agenda, which will be virtual at RIPE80 with the following time slot: Wednesday, May 13, 11:00 - 11:45 As there are currently no active policy proposals and the discussion should be done on the mailinglist anyway, we don’t have any presentations scheduled on new policy proposals. If you have anything else you want to see on the agenda, or if we need to change anything, please let us know. Regards, Gert Döring & Erik Bais, APWG chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, 11:00-11:45 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Administrative Matters (welcome, thanking the scribe, approving the minutes, etc.) B. Re-Selection of co-chair - Erik Bais completed a term. C. Current Policy Topics - Petrit Hasani - NCC PDO - global policy overview "what's going on?" - common policy topics in all regions (end of IPv4, transfers, ...) - overview over concluded proposals in the RIPE region since RIPE 79 - brief overview of new proposals (if any) D. Feedback From NCC Registration Service - Nikolas Pediaditis - IPv4 runout status, initial waiting list experience Z. AOB

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Elad Cohen 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Gert, I didn't attack anyone, I only responded to a defamation post against me in your working group, which to it you didn't write anything. Ronald is aCoconut by many people, and he is defaming me and calling me in names for many many months, including in the post in your own working group - which you completely ignored - so this says a lot about yourself and about your title as a co-chair, and as I already wrote - Ronald is just the front person the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project" which have many contacts and co-chairs in Ripe working groups (like Richard D G Cox that was the co-chair of the Ripe Anti Abuse Working Group) - so like I wrote I do expect to receives unrelated attacks on myself from ethically-distorted members of that illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project" in their high positions - and obviously you are attacking me like you are doing now when you wrote nothing, completely nothing, regarding Ronald post in your group when he used antisemitic phrases against me there without a single proof, when all of it is part of a "cyber influence operation" from "The Spamhaus Project". So go ahead, Gert, attack me once more in an unbalanced way. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 9:56 AM To: Elad Cohen Cc: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:11:12PM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > I responded to Coconut Guilmette that posted in your list. > > If you let him post in your list then you should allow me to respond to him in your list. The mails from the other WG chairs have made it very clear that crossposting to unrelated WGs is not seen as acceptable use of our lists. We're not moderating the lists, so yes, anyone can post anything - but usually people are considerate enough to not do so. If someone slips, we correct, and expect others to listen and learn. Among these acceptable and inacceptable things is "ad-hominem attacks" - so whatever quarrels you have with others, calling someone a "Coconut" on a public list mostly reflects on yourself and your ability to handle personal discrepancies on a professional level (which is, I might say, a strong requirement for a RIPE NCC executive board position). Now, feel free to yell at me privately all you want, but keep non-AP-related stuff off the AP WG list. Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Gert Doering 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hi, On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:10:30AM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > [ lots of stuff totally off-topic for this WG ] Please stop. Otherwise, moderator queue is it for you. Which we had to never do in the past, as people always stopped after a few requests to do so. And we'd like to leave it that way: voluntary acceptance of house rules. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Gert Doering 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hi, On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:16:41AM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > I didn't attack anyone, I only responded to a defamation post against me in your working group, which to it you didn't write anything. > > Ronald is aCoconut by many people, and he is defaming me and calling me > in names for many many months, including in the post in your own working > group - which you completely ignored As I said, it was not necessary to have a third WG chair repeat the same thing that Briand and Denis already said. Calling someone "a Coconut" is definitely not the type of tone we want here. Stick to factual discussions, take the name-calling elsewhere. (Note that Ronald did not mention your name at all, so it is very helpful that you make abundantly clear *who* he refers to, so we can do a much better informed executive board election). > - so this says a lot about yourself and about your title as a co-chair, Yes! I was so hoping for a new round of "Gert Doering is totally unworthy of being a WG chair". We haven't had this in a long while. > So go ahead, Gert, attack me once more in an unbalanced way. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just trying to remind people of house rules. You are are calling names, and you are damaging your own reputation by repeatedly refusing to adhere to list etiquette aka "house rules". Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Gert Doering 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hi, On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:35:33AM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > You are lying and you are part of "The Spamhaus Project", your company is sponsoring "The Spamhaus Project" as can be seen here: Stop it. And to all other readers: if you want to reply to Elad, please do not copy the list, even if it is very tempting. Nothing useful for the address-policy working group can come from further mails in this thread. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Gert Doering 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:11:12PM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > I responded to Coconut Guilmette that posted in your list. > > If you let him post in your list then you should allow me to respond to him in your list. The mails from the other WG chairs have made it very clear that crossposting to unrelated WGs is not seen as acceptable use of our lists. We're not moderating the lists, so yes, anyone can post anything - but usually people are considerate enough to not do so. If someone slips, we correct, and expect others to listen and learn. Among these acceptable and inacceptable things is "ad-hominem attacks" - so whatever quarrels you have with others, calling someone a "Coconut" on a public list mostly reflects on yourself and your ability to handle personal discrepancies on a professional level (which is, I might say, a strong requirement for a RIPE NCC executive board position). Now, feel free to yell at me privately all you want, but keep non-AP-related stuff off the AP WG list. Gert Doering -- AWPG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Elad Cohen 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hello, I responded to Coconut Guilmette that posted in your list. If you let him post in your list then you should allow me to respond to him in your list. Thank you. Regards, Elad ________________________________ From: Gert Doering Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2020 1:08 AM To: Elad Cohen Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] My response to Ronald Guilmette Hi, On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 09:46:52PM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote: > Please forgive me for not writing an official response in first set of Ronald's online madness months ago, I was out of hospital after full anesthesia and it took me months to get back to myself. Please stop posting abuse-wg and NCC membership related stuff to the address-policy WG list (and other WG lists), unless it is *relevant* for the list in question. Your squabble with Spamhaus is not relevant for RIPE address-policy. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

My response to Ronald Guilmette
by Elad Cohen 18 Apr '20

18 Apr '20

Hello Everyone, Please forgive me for not writing an official response in first set of Ronald's online madness months ago, I was out of hospital after full anesthesia and it took me months to get back to myself. Ronald is misery person with nothing and with no one in his life, the only joy that he have in his life - is for him to serve as the front person of the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project". Here is a presentation that "The Spamhaus Project" wrote on themselves (in the following link) and according to it Spamhaus is an illegal anonymous organization - they receive a massive amount of illegally obtained privacy data of internet users from internet companies and internet organizations on a regular basis - and then they share it in illegal way (without any warranty) with law enforcement agencies. https://www.scribd.com/document/445894312/Spamhaus-Illegal-Private-Data-Vio… Ronald doesn't deny himself being part of "The Spamhaus Project", not only that - but his old friend Hank Nussbacher is also part of the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project", Hank reminds me Judas Iscariot - Hank obviously have other interests - it is very sad to see a person at the age of Hank acting like a little child. All the few reports that were made were made by reporters which are connected to "The Spamhaus Project" and that are part of "The Spamhaus Project" - not only that, the source of the media reports is a person in "The Spamhaus Project" which is the owner of that illegal twitter account: https://twitter.com/underthebreach , that person is a criminal according to his own words in his own twitter account - and that person is also a master of cyber influence operations (just like what Coconut Guilmette and Cheerleader Nussbacher are doing here, to influence public opinion without any single proof) - and the owner of that twitter account is also an employee of the israeli-based company GeoEdge which financially benefit from that media report because they are a direct competitor of the company using the exact same netblock, so now I'm explaining to you that that root of this all fake story is just business competition, and in addition Coconut Guilmette also attacked the Israeli-based company Divinetworks in Nanog (Coconut Guilmette searched an unreasonable way why they received a specific grant from a global world organization and also defamed them) - so here is why he did it - the Israeli-based company Divinetworks is also a direct competitor of the Israeli-based company GeoEdge - that their employee is a criminal and the owner of the illegal twitter account https://twitter.com/underthebreach and also the "source" for the fake few media reports. In the following link you can see how a high manager in GeoEdge is highly proud in how customers attracted to him after the "low value" of competitors, if only the world would knew how that company does business. https://imgur.com/7DF1NSP That company GeoEdge is not only a criminal company in the way that they do business (because their criminal employee in "The Spamhaus Project" is the one pumped Coconut Guilmette proof-less ideas), but that company is also a criminal in the way that they are tax-evading since 2005 (they are registered in Cyprus with fake-single-owner abroad while they have more actual hidden owners in Israel that didn't pay any tax for their income since 2005, and one of the registered owners is using an international fake name and he is a professional money-laundering person, not only for that Israeli company). They (Coconut Guilmette, Cheerleader Nussbacher and their mob friends at "The Spamhaus Project") are very very afraid of me releasing all the information that I found out on the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project" - and that is the only reason that they are attacking me personally in such way, they are trying to ruin my good name - but they didn't succeed and they will not succeed - because anyone that knows me and anyone that will personally know me - will know what they are trying to do and that what they are writing is 100% false. All the personal attack against me - is only because I dared to stood up against "The Spamhaus Project" which is intimidating and hurting many businesses online, and I would and will do it again and again and again, I'm not the kind of a misery bendover jew like Hank that will sell his values and his being for a title, a group acceptance or a few cents. Coconut Guilmette, is not only a sick person, in body and mind, but also a racist and an antisemitic, you can see in the following links his stereotypical mindset: https://imgur.com/AcmgwEX (Coconut Guilmette opinion on all Dutch people as a whole - "Dutch are any more inclined toward cybercrime") https://imgur.com/WUZvdNJ (Coconut Guilmette opinion on all Colombian Network Operators usage of the internet as a whole - "Undoubtedly drug smuggling over HTTP") https://imgur.com/a/1ULfVEC (Coconut Guilmette opinion on the City of Chicago including all of its citizens as a whole - "American city most known for its high ideals and consistantly ethical behavior, Chicago") https://imgur.com/AQCmZlk (Coconut Guilmette identified as racist in Nanog) https://imgur.com/a/Rzrbxkz (Coconut Guilmette identified as antisemitic in Nanog) Besides the above links, Coconut Guilmette is specifically calling me with two words and here he is quoting Shakespeare: https://imgur.com/AcmgwEX , the two words that Coconut Guilmette is calling me are being used in Shakespeare litrature to identify jews in an antisemitic way, Coconut Guilmette is an antisemitic, I'm very sorry to write it but Ripe is not a decisive organization towards racism or antisemitism, the Tone in Ripe management and in Ripe board and in this working group co-chairs, is a very narrow tone that only reflect the good of the people in their positions, Ripe board & management are not taking any actions for Ripe to be a multi-culture multi-national unpolitical organization that it needs to be with the tolerance to anyone and with the decisive intolerance to racism or antisemitism. The encouragement of Cheerleader Nussbacher is even worst because Cheerleader Nussbacher is encouraging someone which is a racist and an antisemitic. Hank, how more self-hating jew can you be ? to support such person only to be part of an illegal anonymous organization ? to support racism ? to support antisemitism ? And to the rest of the community, anyone that wrote to this person - "nice story, but you could say it in other words" - you are a lowlife as Hank is, you don't treat a racist or an antisemitic person with tolerance, period. Ripe is a RIR which is spread over 3 continents over many countries, Ripe members are different from each other by all means, I would expect Ripe community not to tolerate racism in any way and when Ripe members see it - to stand up - like I dared to stand up against "The Spamhaus Project". Ron, seeing a person at your age that knows to get attention only by using racism and antisemitism is sad, but seeing the lowlife Judas Iscariot cheerleading your mental illness is sadder. Here are only some of the real identities of the people behind "The Spamhaus Project": "Rob Shultz" - Rob McEwen (https://www.invaluement.com/) "Thomas Morrison" - Daniel R. Thomas (https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/d.thomas/) "Pete Dawes" - Ildiko Pete (https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ip358/) "Vincent Hanna" - Vincent Schonau of Open-Xchange (https://www.linkedin.com/in/vincentschonau/) "Milly Fawcett" - Kelly Molloy of FarSight Security (https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelly-molloy-b886442/) Among others Commericial companies behind "The Spamhaus Project": ThreatSTOP FarSight Security Fastly Cymru Among others Keep on playing with me Coconut Guilmette and Cheerleader Nussbacher and I guarantee to you that the full list will be written here, you can hurt me as much as you please - I am not boneless and will not fold like Hank "Judas Iscariot" Nussbacher. The only reason that Coconut Guilmette returned to life in this thread - is because I wrote two days ago the real identity of "Rob Shultz" (which is Rob McEwen of https://www.invaluement.com/ ) to the co-chairs of this working group with CC to Ripe Board and to Ripe Management, I asked for the initial post of lies of Coconut Guilmette to be removed and I showed to them the relation of one of the current co-chairs of that working group to the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project" which the poster Coconut Guilmette is related to it too. (also in the past there was a co-chair of that working group which is part of "The Spamhaus Project", Richard D G Cox, as you can see in his presentation that I linked to it above) That is the only reason (that I revealed that "Rob Shultz" from "The Spamhaus Project" is Rob McEwen) that Coconut Guilmette and Boneless Nussbacher are personally attacking me, not only that - but soon you will also see a new fake media report about me from the same reporter that used the criminal https://twitter.com/underthebreach as his source - all of it (like it was then and like they are trying to do now) - is to maneuver the subject of who are the real people behind "The Spamhaus Project" and to which internet companies and internet organizations they are connected to. "The Spamhaus Project" is an illegal anonymous organization and an unregulated organization, by being unregulated it is abused by the some of the members of it for making money, without any supervision, for example the criminal which is the owner of the illegal twitter account https://twitter.com/underthebreach that did what it did only that GeoEdge will earn a few more cents, such as Laura Atkins from WordToTheWise which is selling a Spamhaus listing removal service (https://wordtothewise.com), such as Vincent Schonau (AKA "Vincent Hanna" of "The Spamhaus Project") from Open-Xchange, a company that Spamhaus are attacking its competitors, and there are many more Spamhaus members that are using Spamhaus for their financial benefits. "The Spamhaus Project" - by being unregulated and unsupervised - is also being used as tool to attack business competitors, this is something that should wake up each and every member of the internet community. Hank, why do you let Coconut Guilmette to do the hard work for you (of defaming me) ? because you know that he have nothing in his life and a lawsuit against him will not result any financial aid ? why are you abusing his mental illness ? you know that he is not fine, why don't you help him like a good old friend ? Go ahead and write what Ron is writing so I will be able to sue you locally in Israel (I'm willing to pay you 100,000 NIS if you are right in a single thing that you wrote or that you will write against me, are you willing to do the same ? are you willing to put your money where your words are? or are you boneless that can only exploit the state of your old friend? ) I respect Ripe NCC and Respect all the members of Ripe Anti-Abuse Working Group. (P.S.: you can recognize now any member of "The Spamhaus Project" that will jump now, if he will attack me or support Ron, you can just ask him a simple question - "show us a single proof" - and you will see that no proof will be displayed, because all of it is part of an illegal "cyber influence operation" by "The Spamhaus Project" pumped by the criminal https://twitter.com/underthebreach) Respectfully, Elad

2 1

RIPE NCC Executive Board election
by Ronald F. Guilmette 17 Apr '20

17 Apr '20

Greetings all, I know that all is not right with the world right now, and that most of you, like me, have much more pressing things on your minds right now, but someone just sent me the following link and I cannot exactly ignore it: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2020/confirmed-ca… I would like to call everyone's attention to the last of the three candidates who have, it seems, "qualified" as candidates for open seats of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. As I have already said, I know that things are bad in the world right now, but I must ask this question: Is there really no one other than these three candidates who is willing and/or able to stand for the three open seats on the RIPE NCC Executive board... three open seats that will be voted on at the next general meeting, 13-15 May 2020 ? If not, then it seems that RIPE NCC will soon be following in the new tradition, established first by AFRINIC only last year, of placing well and widely known crooks on it board. I desperately hope it won't come to that, but that is not for me to decide. The decision is in your hands dear friends. Regards, rfg

4 5

New AS Number Blocks Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Nikolas Pediaditis 02 Apr '20

02 Apr '20

Dear colleagues, On 1 April 2020, the RIPE NCC received the following AS Number blocks from IANA: 210332-211355 211356-212379 212380-213403 You may want to update your records accordingly. All allocations of AS Numbers made by IANA to RIRs are listed here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis Registration Services & Policy Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

2019-06 Proposal Accepted (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)
by Petrit Hasani 16 Mar '20

16 Mar '20

Dear colleagues, Consensus has been reached on 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy". This proposal aimed to remove obsoleted text and simplify the IPv6 policy. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06 The new RIPE Document is called ripe-738 and is available at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738 We estimate that this proposal will take around one month to fully implement. We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete and the new procedures are in place. Thank you to everyone who provided us with your input. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2019-06 Last Call for Comments (Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy)
by Petrit Hasani 11 Mar '20

11 Mar '20

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2019-06, "Multiple Editorial Changes in IPv6 Policy", is now in Concluding Phase. This proposal aims to remove obsoleted text and simplify the IPv6 policy. The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 11 March 2020 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 WG co-chairs for final consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 11 March 2020. Regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC

3 2