Hi, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:38:55PM +0300, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

Thank you for reply.

You said "people happily trade", what do you want to do ?

*I* want nothing in particular.

They have 3 choice:

1. Close their business.. 2. Buy at outrageous price, from the "smart guys", almost "people happily trade" are very near to close their business. 3. Make another LIR and move resource to the old LIR.. get NEW IPs, never spammed and reasonable price.

But this is not the price "at the transfer service" that you claimed. ... and the community is free to declare that "Make another LIR and move resources to old LIR (right away)" is considered abuse of the last /8 policy, and dis-incentivize it... 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

Hi, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:05:06PM +0300, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

"at the transfer services" i saw sellers that want 17-20 USD per IP, this is crazy, do you want forward ?

Do you think this is a normal ?

No, this is exceptionary high. Normal going price is way lower. [..]

I dont have large blocks.. i want to keep my IPs and have more resource..

Go use IPv6? Especially .ro is one of the leaders in IPv6 deployment... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

 openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR  is - and always was - abusing the policy.

Any links to documents proving it?

but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...

Such a comparison is incorrect. 23.04.2015, 15:27, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

 Hello Gabriel,

 openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR  is - and always was - abusing the policy. So you acutally don't want to  speak against the change of Transfer-Policy but want to keep the  backdoor open.

 So if you think the last /8 policy is not OK - where consensus was  reached - you should stand up and make a change proposal for that.

 Knowing the way to bypass policy still does not mean, that it is  fair/legal. IMHO LIRs which are willingly abusing policies shall get  their entire resources withdrawn immediately, as they are not willing to  be part of the community, so shall not profit from community.

 Sorry, but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is  almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...

 Regards  Jens

 On 23.04.2015 14:05, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

...

  Hello Gert,

  "at the transfer services"  i saw sellers that want 17-20 USD per IP,    this is crazy, do you want forward ?

  Do you think this is a normal ?

  If right now they ask soo much even when they know someone like me can   open a new LIR an close after 1 year.

  What will happen when someone like me will open a LIR and pay 2 yrs   before to move the IPs  to the old LIR

  I tell you what will happen,  the sellers will put another 5-7 USD per   IP, for sure.

  Most of the guys that are pro this proposal have large blocks for sell..

  I dont have large blocks.. i want to keep my IPs and have more resource..

  Thank you.

  /--   Cu stima,   Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager   /voitis@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro>

  /INFINITY TELECOM SRL  |  Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2   Mobil: +40 0725 677 477  |  Tel: +40 021 7808805  |  Fax: +40 021 7808806   /contact@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro>   !DSPAM:637,5538e2cc256411567483881!  --  Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team  Jens Ott

 Opteamax GmbH

 Simrockstr. 4b  53619 Rheinbreitbach

 Tel.:  +49 2224 969500  Fax:   +49 2224 97691059  Email: jo@opteamax.de

 HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur  Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

I mean official (accepted) documents. For now we also have a discussion :) 23.04.2015, 15:36, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

  openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR   is - and always was - abusing the policy.  Any links to documents proving it?

Read the mailing list discussions about the last /8 policy. The /22 per LIR was always about having new entrants to the market being able to at least get a little chunk of addresses so they could have NAT444, email servers etc.

It was NEVER meant for people to start LIR, get /22, transfer /22, close LIR, start another LIR, get another /22, transer /22, close LIR, repeat again and again. If the community wanted it to work that way, the policy would have been very differently worded.

-- Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.

The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof).

The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

All this lines relates to receiving /22 from RIPE NCC! Not from other LIRs. Please read all 5.1 st from ripe-643 So merging own LIRs or receiving /22 from other member is not violation. 23.04.2015, 15:39, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

On 23.04.2015 14:31, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

  openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR   is - and always was - abusing the policy.  Any links to documents proving it?

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51

Number 3

...

...

 but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is  almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...  Such a comparison is incorrect.

Maybe my comparison lacks do to difficulties translating into english: The guy selling the stuff does not (necessarily) know that the one he bought it from stole it. There are some of those shops, everybody know that they not ask where stuff comes from, but nobody can blame the shopowner ...

Jens

...

 23.04.2015, 15:27, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

...

  Hello Gabriel,

  openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR   is - and always was - abusing the policy. So you acutally don't want to   speak against the change of Transfer-Policy but want to keep the   backdoor open.

  So if you think the last /8 policy is not OK - where consensus was   reached - you should stand up and make a change proposal for that.

  Knowing the way to bypass policy still does not mean, that it is   fair/legal. IMHO LIRs which are willingly abusing policies shall get   their entire resources withdrawn immediately, as they are not willing to   be part of the community, so shall not profit from community.

  Sorry, but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is   almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...

  Regards   Jens

  On 23.04.2015 14:05, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

...

   Hello Gert,

   "at the transfer services"  i saw sellers that want 17-20 USD per IP,     this is crazy, do you want forward ?

   Do you think this is a normal ?

   If right now they ask soo much even when they know someone like me can    open a new LIR an close after 1 year.

   What will happen when someone like me will open a LIR and pay 2 yrs    before to move the IPs  to the old LIR

   I tell you what will happen,  the sellers will put another 5-7 USD per    IP, for sure.

   Most of the guys that are pro this proposal have large blocks for sell..

   I dont have large blocks.. i want to keep my IPs and have more resource..

   Thank you.

   /--    Cu stima,    Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager    /voitis@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro>

   /INFINITY TELECOM SRL  |  Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2    Mobil: +40 0725 677 477  |  Tel: +40 021 7808805  |  Fax: +40 021 7808806    /contact@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro>   --   Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team   Jens Ott

  Opteamax GmbH

  Simrockstr. 4b   53619 Rheinbreitbach

  Tel.:  +49 2224 969500   Fax:   +49 2224 97691059   Email: jo@opteamax.de

  HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur   Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989  --  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev  General director, QuickSoft LLC  Tel: +7 903 1750503

 !DSPAM:637,5538e8fa275851377834544!

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500 Fax:   +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On 23.04.2015 14:50, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

3.0 Goals of the Internet Registry System

can be treated by a lot of ways.

I (personally) doesn't find any prohibition in st. 3.0 to have many /22 per LIR.

Number 3 after the _link_ not 3.0 (#51 anchor) Number 5.1 paragraph No.3 "The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation." so the LIR opened and requesting the /22 only for selling does not fullfill the policy. Without a real assignment , the /22 may never be sold, as the LIR first need to fullfill his confirmation

23.04.2015, 15:39, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

...

On 23.04.2015 14:31, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR is - and always was - abusing the policy. Any links to documents proving it?

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51

Number 3

...

...

but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ... Such a comparison is incorrect.

Maybe my comparison lacks do to difficulties translating into english: The guy selling the stuff does not (necessarily) know that the one he bought it from stole it. There are some of those shops, everybody know that they not ask where stuff comes from, but nobody can blame the shopowner ...

Jens

...

23.04.2015, 15:27, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

...

Hello Gabriel,

openig a bunch of LIR only for transfering their /22 V4 to another LIR is - and always was - abusing the policy. So you acutally don't want to speak against the change of Transfer-Policy but want to keep the backdoor open.

So if you think the last /8 policy is not OK - where consensus was reached - you should stand up and make a change proposal for that.

Knowing the way to bypass policy still does not mean, that it is fair/legal. IMHO LIRs which are willingly abusing policies shall get their entire resources withdrawn immediately, as they are not willing to be part of the community, so shall not profit from community.

Sorry, but for me the way you are proposing to run a "business" is almost the same as the one of a guy selling stolen stuff ...

Regards Jens

On 23.04.2015 14:05, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

...

Hello Gert,

"at the transfer services" i saw sellers that want 17-20 USD per IP, this is crazy, do you want forward ?

Do you think this is a normal ?

If right now they ask soo much even when they know someone like me can open a new LIR an close after 1 year.

What will happen when someone like me will open a LIR and pay 2 yrs before to move the IPs to the old LIR

I tell you what will happen, the sellers will put another 5-7 USD per IP, for sure.

Most of the guys that are pro this proposal have large blocks for sell..

I dont have large blocks.. i want to keep my IPs and have more resource..

Thank you.

/-- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager /voitis@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro>

/INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 /contact@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro> -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

!DSPAM:637,5538ed66295344115222871!

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

Hello Opteamax, BTW about "stolen", lets look at transfer list and see companies that have /16 /17 /18 blocks Do you think they ever could explain, so much resources ? In their case, internet activity its very tiny or absent.. but they hold large and very large blocks. How many of them with /16 /17 blocks for sell was ever present in any IX (internet exchange) for example.. How many of them are really in internet business ? The transfer list is one way too look, why IPv4 vanish ! and who make profit.. its so easy.. For sure i dont do any profit.. because i "stole" a /22 for my company ! And i dont have enough money to pay the sellers 2-3 times more.. Maybe i am a newcomer and i dont know too much.. i apologies for this ! -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis@infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact@infinitytelecom.ro

Hello Daniel, Finally, someone said the word ! " Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"??? " Thank you ! -- Best regards, Gabriel Voitis

+1000 23.04.2015, 18:17, "Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)" <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es>:

Hi,

El 23/04/2015 a las 13:43, Gert Doering escribió:

...

 ... and the community is free to declare that "Make another LIR and move  resources to old LIR (right away)" is considered abuse of the last /8  policy, and dis-incentivize it...

Sure we are. But I always have seen a problem with this kind of proposals and the community. The problem is that lot of members of the community are IP Trader/Broker/Sellers so, a policy such this one are VERY GOOD for them while is VERY BAD for the new lirs that only hold a /22. The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???

Did the community think about if all the offers in the Listing Service are reclaimed from RIPE, the IPv4 Exhaustion "dissapear"?

Why nobody in the community proposed it?

Regards,

-- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es

--

[Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial,

privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario.

Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje

sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este

e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente.

[Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and

confidential and is intended only for its addressee.

Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.

If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us.

(!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos.

Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi Vladimir, all, Thursday, April 23, 2015, 5:31:05 PM, you wrote: VA> It's not legal to introduce such proposals. Why do you think so? -- Sergey

-1000 If there's incentive to lie about the usage of the addresses then people will just lie. Same as how some LIRs got their (still unused) large swaths of netblocks in the first place. Please try to be a bit more realistic. Matyas On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

+1000

23.04.2015, 18:17, "Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)" <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es>:

...

Hi,

El 23/04/2015 a las 13:43, Gert Doering escribiĂł:

...

 ... and the community is free to declare that "Make another LIR and move  resources to old LIR (right away)" is considered abuse of the last /8  policy, and dis-incentivize it...

Sure we are. But I always have seen a problem with this kind of proposals and the community. The problem is that lot of members of the community are IP Trader/Broker/Sellers so, a policy such this one are VERY GOOD for them while is VERY BAD for the new lirs that only hold a /22. The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???

Did the community think about if all the offers in the Listing Service are reclaimed from RIPE, the IPv4 Exhaustion "dissapear"?

Why nobody in the community proposed it?

Regards,

-- Daniel Baeza Centro de ObservaciĂłn de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es

--

[AtenciĂłn] La informaciĂłn contenida en este e-mail es confidencial,

privilegiada y estĂĄ dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario.

Cualquier revisiĂłn, difusiĂłn, distribuciĂłn o copiado de este mensaje

sin autorizaciĂłn del propietario estĂĄ prohibido. Si ha recibido este

e-mail por error por favor bĂłrrelo y envĂ­e un mensaje al remitente.

[Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and

confidential and is intended only for its addressee.

Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.

If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us.

(!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos.

Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi, On 23.04.2015 17:16, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

I'm not so sure about that. But maybe it would be better to promote RIPE PDP at your local user groups (xNOG), so that more people get involved in the process. If you just look at the member count of RIPE (and no, you do not have to be a member to participate in the PDP) and the members involved in the address policy working group there is a huge gap. So either people do not care at all, or they can live with the policies that other members of the community come up with. And IP Brokers ARE part of the community if you like it or not.

Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???

Well I can only speak for myself. For me it is important that the RIPE database is as accurate as possible. I'm pretty sure "Unused space should be returned to RIPE" is just not gonna happen, even if this ends up in a policy. When we allow transfers, we have a better chance that the records are kept up to date. Regards André

* Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es> [2015-04-23 17:21]:

...

... and the community is free to declare that "Make another LIR and move resources to old LIR (right away)" is considered abuse of the last /8 policy, and dis-incentivize it...

Sure we are. But I always have seen a problem with this kind of proposals and the community. The problem is that lot of members of the community are IP Trader/Broker/Sellers so, a policy such this one are VERY GOOD for them while is VERY BAD for the new lirs that only hold a /22. The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

I don't think that "a lot" of the community are IP traders (and by that I mean companies that make profit by buying/selling IPv4). They are one part of the community.

Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???

Because he was the one who actually submitted the proposal. More people agreed that this proposal would be useful (me among them).

Did the community think about if all the offers in the Listing Service are reclaimed from RIPE, the IPv4 Exhaustion "dissapear"?

No, the IPv4 exhaustion will not "disappear". :) Please stop spreading such an urban myth. You can be proven wrong by simple mathematics.

Why nobody in the community proposed it?

Because it is nonsense. 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

So what is the benefit for Elvis, who is the broker? If he found 2 sides who make the transfer he will lose the part of clients. If this proposal doesn't affect him all resellers will be brokers. 23 Апр 2015 г. 22:53 пользователь "Leo Vegoda" <leo.vegoda@icann.org> написал:

Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:

[...]

...

I don't think that "a lot" of the community are IP traders (and by that I mean companies that make profit by buying/selling IPv4). They are one part of the community.

The RIPE NCC helpfully publishes a list of brokers that have signed up to its Recognized IPv4 Transfer Agreement:

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4 -transfers/brokers

Regards,

Leo Vegoda

I don't attack anybody, I am just interesting 24 Апр 2015 г. 0:16 пользователь "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> написал:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:10:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

...

So what is the benefit for Elvis, who is the broker?

If he found 2 sides who make the transfer he will lose the part of clients. If this proposal doesn't affect him all resellers will be brokers.

If you read the minutes of the APWG meeting at the previous RIPE meeting, you can see that the issue was brought up by the RIPE NCC. The group in the room decided that it would be good to do something about it, and Elvis volunteered to write up something formal to get the discussion going.

It's not like Elvis made this up to further his business.

(And, as a call for order: further personal attacks on the personal integrity of a proposer will not help bring forward your argument. If you do not like a proposal, bring forth factual arguments that people can answer - personal attacks will just disqualify your voice when the chairs go about judging consensus)

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

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

3. Make another LIR and move resource to the old LIR.. get NEW IPs, never spammed and reasonable price.

You're free to do this after the minimum time according to the proposed changed text. You just have to keep the LIR open for at least 24 months before you can transfer the /24 out of it and close the LIR. It seems you're exactly one of the (ab)users of the current policy and you seem to think it's your right to continue with this. That's a valid opinion, but it's not shared with most other people here. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

In one of my prev. letter I listed calculations proving that reselling doesn't have big impact on IPv4 space exhaustion. In such case WHAT IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT? About PERSONAL wish of some people to play dirty tricks with /22 sellers? 23.04.2015, 15:07, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:

I think firstly we should answer question "why" to introduce change to RIPE NCC policy. And only then "what" to change.

In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community as a whole. Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for community.

If somebody doesn't like that other people do their business on reselling it's not a problem of community.

23.04.2015, 15:03, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>:

...

 On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

...

  3. Make another LIR and move resource to the old LIR..  get NEW IPs,   never spammed and reasonable price.  You're free to do this after the minimum time according to the proposed  changed text. You just have to keep the LIR open for at least 24 months  before you can transfer the /24 out of it and close the LIR.

 It seems you're exactly one of the (ab)users of the current policy and you  seem to think it's your right to continue with this. That's a valid  opinion, but it's not shared with most other people here.

 --  Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them together. So achieving "one LIR — one /22" is impossible. 23.04.2015, 15:20, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:07:54PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community as a whole.

"Rough consensus" does not mean *everybody* has to agree.

...

 Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for community.

Oh, to the contrary - ensuring that allocations from the last /8 are not burnt like crazy (by permitting arbitrary fast trading) might not be something good for you personally, but for the *rest* of the community, it might be actually a good thing (depending on whether or not you believe in the rationale for the last /8 policy).

The last /8 is not there to do "business as usual, based on IPv4" - it is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6.

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

You say "legitimate" business processes. But how have decided what is "legitimate" and what is not? I see no prohibition in current policies to open, receive /22 and close. So it's also "legitimate" business! And why receiving /22's for own company is "legitimate" and for selling is not? 23.04.2015, 15:38, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:22:34PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 But the proposal doesn't forbid to open many LIRs and then merge them together.

Indeed, because that would prevent legitimate business processes.

But what it does is making the "open, sell, close" quick cycle less economically interesting.  Which is all we can do here.

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.

The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof).

The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

Please point me where in quoted text you see any prohibition to open and merge LIRs with /22's? 23.04.2015, 15:43, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:41:10PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 And why receiving /22's for own company is "legitimate" and for selling is not?

*one* /22 per LIR is the last-/8 policy

 not "open lots of LIRs, so a single LIR can have multiple /22s in the end,       and circumvent the one-LIR-one-/22-allocated policy".

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

So you acknowledge that you don't like that people do business? Right? If yes, it's you personal meaning because you are affiliated person (it's pleasant to you to know nobody can earn money such way). I speaking about NOT ACCEPTING proposals which lead to any advantage (including moral delight that other can't do their business) to some group of members (possible little). If such proposal HAS exact reasoning — OK, let'e discuss! 23.04.2015, 15:50, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

 On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

 The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.

 The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof).

 The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.  Please point me where in quoted text you see any prohibition to open and merge LIRs with /22's?

We can't do that, so what we're trying to do is make it less profitable to do so.

But the INTENTION behind the current policy was to allow a new ISP (or other type of entity) a /22 to allow them to participate in IPv4 world 5-10 years down the line. It was NOT to allow people to use administrative tricks to cheaply acquire IPv4 space for use in a single business.

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

OK. I explain this one more time :) Just after receiving /22 you should create 2 x "inetnum" (each /23) with type ASSIGNED PA. Formally you are right since you have made assignments. Furthermore you can create "route" object and announce your /22. In such case nobody can say "you don't use you allocation" or "you didn't make assignments". 23.04.2015, 17:08, "Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH" <jo@opteamax.de>:

On 23.04.2015 14:45, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

 The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the  allocation.  Please point me where in quoted text you see any prohibition to  open and merge LIRs with /22's?

Buying and merging is not prohibited, _but_ opening LIR, requesting /22 and selling /22 and closing LIR ist probibited, as the LIR did not fullfil his confirmed will to make assignments!!

BR Jens

...

 23.04.2015, 15:43, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

...

 Hi,

 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:41:10PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev  wrote:

...

 And why receiving /22's for own company is "legitimate" and for  selling is not?  *one* /22 per LIR is the last-/8 policy

 not "open lots of LIRs, so a single LIR can have multiple /22s in  the end, and circumvent the one-LIR-one-/22-allocated policy".

 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  -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft  LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

 !DSPAM:637,5538ec5f290721315150076!

- -- Jens Ott - - Gesch?ftsf?hrer -

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500 Fax:   +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVOOrXAAoJECrmRJLVnvx6HRcIAK+EIe7EU2OCDjNC1f5v1JKd xEIBbGiQN7k1TeQI2lPbW1WLZHGxHrFp9PCTHnT+T9uihIdnaj+O9Zv/Bq6MCy9r qNopxk5DYOaljxcsiPuDHDNj1jvxbOmkSVSbaoZJ5VFlm4qLhZSOjvMJnYGvzBR8 e/qX00EQAncyXSU4Iq59D9BK43iyYqvY/8Bvr1f7PSbNluEHM4zl6jHUoJR0WtDd 8hlpWpjxz+tWtW9XhZm6EzzCwlnwrhdfTUr6sTA+f9pXJF2ypLf8SMJavi+Of2zi MXzCrgO+GJzvIkcqxfjpzyQuoDNesN8fI9KrLk0Q1PYTv7MXZQquwVLbwx+79zc= =LVL7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 16:35, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

So "making an assignment" does *not* mean create a /23 inetnum in RIPE-DB.

No, but creating an inetnum is pretty much the only way to verify that an assignment has been made (even it it is not true). Point is : we want to prevent abuse, but there seems to be no real way to do it in real-life.

W dniu 2015-04-23 o 16:35, Opteamax GmbH pisze:

On 23.04.2015 16:13, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

OK. I explain this one more time :)

Just after receiving /22 you should create 2 x "inetnum" (each /23) with type ASSIGNED PA. Formally you are right since you have made assignments. Which is not the intention. but I agree, obviously we need to clarify what an assignment is. Please refer to chapter 6 of ripe-643.

ASSIGNED PA: This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR. It cannot be kept when terminating services provided by the LIR.

So "making an assignment" does *not* mean create a /23 inetnum in RIPE-DB.

You can create 2x /23 or 4 x/24, describe them as John Smith or ACME INC., put them on a VPS or even ordinary switch connected to the Internet, announce the space, make it pingable and after 1 or 2 months dismount all this mess and sell it. In such case *all* currently requirements of "assignment" are fulfilled. Many years ago (before Sept 2012) lot of LIR's made such masquerades to present "depletion" of their allocations and asked for so much new space, as they can obtain from RIPE, and stockpiled them.

If this is your understanding of what an LIR does ... no further comment.

Over described situation is not significantly different from real user assignment. How to distinguish them? Send auditors? Best regards Tomasz Śląski

W dniu 2015-04-23 o 17:39, Opteamax GmbH pisze:

On 23.04.2015 17:20, -TOM- wrote:

...

Over described situation is not significantly different from real user assignment. How to distinguish them? Send auditors?

So if I get you right only because it is impossible to check, it is ok to cheat? And only because others do it, it's ok to do it?

Of course I do not support such behavior, but the facts are, that the people always find a backdoor. Especially if there is money behind it... Best regards Tomasz Śląski

OK. Let's it's welcome side effect. Please answer me the following question: What reasoning (not purpose) has current proposal? 23.04.2015, 15:57, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:45:56PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

 On application for IPv4 resources LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

 The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.

 The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC after the 14th of September 2012 is limited to a maximum of 1024 IPv4 addresses (a single /22 or the equivalent thereof).

 The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.  Please point me where in quoted text you see any prohibition to open and merge LIRs with /22's?

It is not prohibited, and we're not trying to achieve that - prohibiting is easy, enabling useful processes while discouraging abuse is the tricky part.

The spirit of this policy should be very clear to everybody, and we're working on encouraging compliance with the spirit, not finding loopholes in the letters.

In other words: we don't really care if your business model suffers if you can't fast-trade /22s anymore - it would be a welcome side effect.

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

What from this quotation is? Please give me a link. And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing? Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question: Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing? If anybody from members want to forbid /22 selling let's forbid multiple /22 receiving at all! It would be fair regarding all other members! And because current proposal REMAINS hole for receiving ANY number of /22 for own company I have all reasons to think that current proposal has it's ONLY aim to make life harder for members that want to sell their /22's. 23.04.2015, 16:12, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

 Hi,

 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:05:46PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

  OK. Let's it's welcome side effect.

  Please answer me the following question:

  What reasoning (not purpose) has current proposal?  "The RIPE NCC discovered that people are abusing the current policy"

 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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".

Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC. Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :) The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to other companies). An such order doesn't abuse any policies. If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc. 23.04.2015, 16:35, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 What from this quotation is? Please give me a link.  And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing?

Stop turning in circles.  This question has been answered before.

...

 Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question:  Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing?

Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc.

So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning it into the pool? That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8 policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22 if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be forbidden anyway then ;) BR - -- Jens Ott - - Gesch?ftsf?hrer - Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVOPfFAAoJECrmRJLVnvx6y/YH/0kKU6Utix3nbuwi3rs8TwMn LvrVbuzRosgU78LlNc+0rfY/BFCKPLQF0WFm5bCHn5ZkRH21jr8ETkSGWgnGCge2 LuboUF5E9cPpcahMJw4ZP6WNyfZkNQzzXckaALqmN8j2snIfmfutvoiZY6zkjW+7 cLu0ePgnsN4ZeopMSDsRubY65oChrhmKfA5dTvB6sQdEsjmj7jL1dAGVx5A74NTH 2Z4a52c/VGccs+/wPDyaqLc9RL5if3gqg6Om0IB7bJglmcKaVoxESyDmb3heFXNP 0YT3Psl/ySTGPlspUztuMyefektjedB4ndmoId5n5Zjxd/bI3XKmeBAPyKTdxTE= =MjkK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 23.04.2015 16:33, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

- soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to mention that now we have some real-life experience.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to soften the "last /8" policy ... as Alex already mentioned. A business which needs IPv4 to survive does something wrong ... BR Jens -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

On 23.04.2015 17:04, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 16:37, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

...

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to soften the "last /8" policy ... as Alex already mentioned. A business which needs IPv4 to survive does something wrong ...

Today, 23/04/2015, a business *DOES* need IPv4 to survive. IPv6 is still seen as a "geek thing", and a lot of things are still badly implemented (if implemented at all) over IPv6. The policy, the way it is, just keps the agony going on for a very long time, at least in RIPE-land.

Yes, you need IPv4, but you'd don't need *more* IPv4. At least not more as you can legally receive from RIPE without cheating. Techniques like 6to4, CGN etc. exist ... for a business to survive, it actually is enough to rollout these things... But I agree - and see it almost daily with my customers - in a lot of heads rolling out V6 and using the mentioned things ends in: "we fear to rollout V6, it is working with V4 so we don't want to spend time to test if V6 is working properly" ... and then, one day and as unforseeable as Christmas coming end of December, they discover they'd need more V4 to grow but can't get and suddenly they need to hurry, they make mistakes in implementing as they are in hurry and they shout out "you see, IPv6 integration is bullshit" only because they forgot some config-changes. BR Jens -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

While some people agree with the concept, I'm not sure that the community in its whole (or majority) will agree with rolling-back several years of (already-established) policies. This definitely needs more discussion (maybe during a meeting): - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice- lying about "needs" and "use") - soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to mention that now we have some real-life experience.

Hello Radu-Adrian, It was the «last /8 policy» itself that abolished needs-based allocation, actually. After its implementation in autumn 2012, each LIR gets only a single /22, regardless of its actual need (which could be both larger or smaller than a /22). The rationale for this policy was not at all to «legitimate lying», but to attempt to ensure that new entrants would still be able to get hold of a little bit of IPv4 five or maybe even ten years after depletion. If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night. The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC's pool are likely not nearly enough to cover the latent unmet need that has been building in the region since the «last /8 policy» was implemented. Tore

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 20:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night. The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC's pool are likely not nearly enough to cover the latent unmet need that has been building in the region since the «last /8 policy» was implemented.

Looking at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ (figure 28e) the RIPE allocation rate was around 2-3 /8:s per year at the time of the last /8 policy kicked into effect, so the ~18 million addresses would be gone in a matter of days, at the same rate that LIRs could create applications and send them in.

"Needs based" starts with "you don't get anything if you don't acutally have a need for". I suppose that "selling" does not qualify as "need". And "needs-based" doesn't imply "you get all that you need". For me an "you get what is available *IF* you need something" (and some other conditions) still counts as "needs-based". The problem now (Elvis' policy is just one more proof) is that LIRs can get space even if they don't actually need it: 1. Ask for "your space", *promise* to make allocations, get "your" space. 2. [Optional] Bring up a new instace of "you" and go to step 1.

So apart from a few people, most of us agree that any attempt at changing policy in the more liberal direction is doomed to fail miserably.

Again, *more* liberal, does not mean *most* liberal. There's a huge gap between the policies in force 13/09/2012 and before and the ones in force 14/09/2012 and after. This what I would like to see fixed. Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15 $/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ?

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

Again, *more* liberal, does not mean *most* liberal. There's a huge gap between the policies in force 13/09/2012 and before and the ones in force 14/09/2012 and after. This what I would like to see fixed. Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15 $/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ?

It all depends on the size of the company. You can comfortably serve around 50-100 residential customers per IPv4 address behind NAT444. Let's say you give each customer 512 ports, that gives you around 120 users per IPv4 address. Let's now say you allocate 3 /24:s for this use, meaning you can service 75-80k users out of this space that you acquired for a total TCO for 3 years of (if I remember correctly, 6kEUR in LIR costs). I'd say that if you can't bear 6kEUR over 3 years for 75k users, you're doing something wrong. The same model of course doesn't work if you're a VPS provider and require a unique IPv4 address per customer server. Then you're going to have to buy addresses to get what you need if you're any significant size. So whilst I do appreciate that you have actually presented something resembling a beginning of a proposal (compared to a lot of other people earlier in this thread), your model needs a cut-off somewhere where the company size "need" is now less valuable than the small company "need". Where do you draw the line? How do you define need? With the current policy we have reached consensus that we'll allow a /22 for new entrants, and if you need more, then you need to buy the addresses on the market. This means someone really small might get too many addresses, correct, and it means someone who is growing, will soon join the larger players in having to cope with "lack of enough IPv4 space". Yes, just like the housing market, it is unfair that the 80 year old lady is sitting in a 3 bedroom apartment with no mortgage whilst the family of four where both parents are working have to make do with a 1 bedroom apartment because they can't afford to buy a larger one. Unfortunately, there is no great way to handle this unfairness. So, your skeleton of a proposal needs a bit more thought and meat on the bone before we can actually discuss it. Where do you draw the line? How do we make sure small new entrants can still get IPv4 space in 5-10 years (because there is consensus that we want this to be possible), while still making current policy more permissive to handing smallish blocks on "needs" basis (whatever that might be). Also take into account the generally there is consensus that we don't want people to be able to use administrative loopholes in order to get themselves more IPv4 addresses for instance through multiple LIRs and other methods, at least not substantially under current market prices for IPv4 addresses. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 20:20, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

this thread has drifted quite far, but a few comments need to be made:

Hence the subject change....

It definitely is way outside the scope of this proposal. Bringing back needs based allocation, removing the last-/8 policy, or changing the size of the last-/8 allocation would have to be a separate policy proposal.

I agree with this. The real question is : do we need any of these changes or not ? If yes, which of them and in which form. I preffer some discussion before trying to propose anything.

proposal, it has been abolished because there is nothing left to allocate based on "need" - if I need a /8, and you need a /20, we both get a /22,

Some don't even "need" a /22. But they can get it (and then sell it). Before, you had to provide some explanation on why do you need your last /22. Now you don't - you just promise to make allocations out of it.

so where's the benefit in having a complex system that will lead to the same result anyway, no matter how big your need is?

The "same result" is the part I don't fully agree with.

In which way has the situation changed, except that we're now very close to *3* RIRs having run out of IPv4 addresses (and/or are in the "last /8" phase)?

Today's state of fact: - APNIC : last /8 policy since 2011. LIRs can get one /22 from the "103-pool" and one /22 fron the "non-103" pool, which only exists sicne 2014. "needs-based". - LACNIC : phase 2 (of 3) of the run-out plan since 06/2014, companies can get a /22 every 6 months, until the reserves fall to a /11 (phase 3, where strictly one /22 will be available). Gradual enforcement of the needs-checking. - ARIN : last /8, phase 4 since 04/2014 - members("LIRs") can get as much as whey "need", with the chacking of actual needs being reinforced. - AfriNIC : "peace and love", 2.6 /8s available. About 2 years ahead before entering in any form of "last /8". - RIPE NCC: "last /8" since 09/2012. As of 04/2015 (more than 30 months later) the free pool is *bigger* than a /8, due to recovered and re-allocated space from IANA). No needs policy. Exactly one /22 per LIR, but with a backdoor (several LIRs). Short : the situation changed by the fact that now RIPE has a bigger pool than at the time of actication of the "last /8" policy. Yes, after 2.5 years, RIPE has more free space. Second RIR in terms of "free stock" and the most conservative at the same time.

Has someone discovered a magic store of IPv4 addresses that we can use to return to the time of large pools and /10 allocations to big telcos?

There is a huge distance between /22 and /10. Some people would be more than happy with a /20, which is probably what some big telcos would be able to recover just by recovering space provisioned for "no longer clients". Some strict needs-based allocation should be able to help some small players to get to a decent situation. We basically have almost 3 years worth of /22 available via "returned space" that could be re-distributed : - based on valid/validated needs - from the IANA recovered space allocated to RIPE NCC - only to players below a certain threshold (like the ones having only received a /22 from the 185-pool, or the ones that never received more than a /20 or /21) - extra allocation possible X months after the "185-pool allocation" , X to be defined (?? 12 ?? 24 ??) - second and possibly third allocation, if still available after another Y months (Y = ?? 12 ?? 24 ?? 30 ?? 36 ??) Those are just ideas, not all of them need to be transposed into policy text (if policy will be).

I'm sure you understand that there's thousands of RIPE LIRs out there that *all* want IPv4 space - so if you loosen up the policy too far, RIPE NCC

No, they don't *ALL* want IPv4 space, and amongst the ones that do want, not all of them want it today. Hell, there's some of then that only wanted a /24 or /23 PI space !

will dry out in a few months, and nothing will be left. This is what ARIN (consciously) did, not having a soft-landing / last-/8 policy, and we decided that we want to have a long tail of "some leftover bits of addresses to hand to newcomers in the market, 5 or 10 years hence".

5-10 years since when ? since 09/2012 ? At the current rate we will do the 5 years (2017) without any problems, and still have enough space. We will most probably do the 10 years (2022) and still have some space. On the other hand, how do you really expect people to take IPv6 seriously when you plan on having "just enough" free IPv4 space by 2020 ? Did you disqualify any vendor because of lack of IPv6 support ? Becasue of improper IPv6 support ? Because of impossibility to function without IPv4 ? I expect *you* did it at least once, but how many people didn't because, "nah, we can sill have some IPv4, more than enough if we count the RFC1918" ? Provider-wise, you need IPv4 for lots of things, unless you do it "corporate-style" (RFC1918 everywhere, with the risk of "my 10.1.1.2 must send data to your 10.1.1.2"). So no, softening the "last /8 policy" does not necesarily mean giving big allocations to everyone and burning out ressources in 2 months. And shortening the life of the "free pool" by a few years isn't necesarily such a bad thing in the global context. Besides, we just won 2.5 years recently. Also imagine the posibilities of what might happen when ARIN will be totally out of stock (most probably before the end of the year) if US companies start opening subsidiaries in Europe just in order to have some more small chunks of IPv4; because there's no needs checking. Do we want ot handle those situations in a reactive manner (like this open-transfer-close issue) or in a more pro-active one ?

have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? No, had to fix broken IPv6 things.

-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc.

So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning it into the pool?

That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8 policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22 if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be forbidden anyway then ;)

Announcing globally was never a requirement to receive IP addresses from RIPE, and changing policy retroactively is not a nice thing to do. And you wouldn't deter this kind of 'abuse' at all, if you're in the internet business I'm sure you know how easy it is to set up an announcement for a prefix. Matyas

Vladimir, +1 23 Апр 2015 г. 17:24 пользователь "Vladimir Andreev" < vladimir@quick-soft.net> написал:

I am just speaking about how easy requirement about making assignments can be passed.

23.04.2015, 17:19, "Matyas Koszik" <koszik@atw.hu>:

...

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

...

On 23.04.2015 15:39, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc. So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning it into the pool?

That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8 policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22 if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be forbidden anyway then ;)

Announcing globally was never a requirement to receive IP addresses from RIPE, and changing policy retroactively is not a nice thing to do. And you wouldn't deter this kind of 'abuse' at all, if you're in the internet business I'm sure you know how easy it is to set up an announcement for a prefix.

Matyas

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

This thread is just... wow... Maybe we should review what the Last /8 Policy is all about...

On Apr 23, 2015, at 15:39 , Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:

...

Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".

Policy sets this rule only for /22's received from RIPE NCC.

Indeed, RIPE NCC will not allocate you several /22. I have tested it :)

The only way is to receive allocations from other LIR (own or belonging to other companies). An such order doesn't abuse any policies.

If we suppose having multiple /22 per LIR is abusing then main "abuser" is RIPE NCC since RIPE NCC makes transfers and LIR merging allowing to receive second /22 etc.

Actually, this very much is abuse. The Last /8 Policy is intended to provide for two things: 1. A single small block of IPs (/22) for new organisations who join the internet. 2. A single small block of IPs (/22) for existing organisations who didn't plan for the end of IPv4 very well so they could deploy some kind of 6-to-4-whatever in that /22. Because businesses merge and do take-overs and that kind of thing in the normal course of existing, transfers related to mergers and acquisitions have to be possible. Anything else than the above is abuse of the Last /8 Policy and no amount of semantic masturbation is going to change that. If a business needs to abuse this policy to survive, it has no right to exist. And if you really do need more addresses to survive, IPv4 is over guys, deal with it. As always, time will tell if this proposal will stop this kind of abuse, but it's a step in the right direction. Alex Le Heux Rakuten Inc

23.04.2015, 16:35, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

...

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

What from this quotation is? Please give me a link. And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing?

Stop turning in circles. This question has been answered before.

...

Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question: Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing?

Because the policy says "one /22 per LIR".

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

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:25:14PM +0200, Andre Keller wrote:

Cant we just wait for the impact analysis to be published and then consult for (rough) consensous?

This is actually an important aspect: this discussion right now is interesting, without any doubt, but as far as consensus building for the proposal under discussion, it does not exist(!). The proposal is right now neither in disussion phase (done, chairs decided that there is enough support to go ahead) nor in review phase (starts when the impact analysis is published and Marco formally announces the new phase). So, whatever you say before the review phase starts has no formal effect on the WG chair decision on whether or not we have consensus. (And be warned, even after review phase starts, statements of the sort "THIS WILL RUIN MY BUSINESS!" will not be given very much weight, as we all know the numbers - and *any* business that still relies on IPv4-only is going to face rough waters) 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

I answered to this question in another thread. I can announce my /22 for some time. And after that sell it 23.04.2015, 15:59, "Opteamax GmbH" <ripe@opteamax.de>:

On 23.04.2015 14:45, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

 The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the  allocation.  Please point me where in quoted text you see any prohibition to  open and merge LIRs with /22's?

Buying and merging is not prohibited, _but_ opening LIR, requesting /22 and selling /22 and closing LIR ist probibited, as the LIR did not fullfil his confirmed will to make assignments!!

BR Jens

...

 23.04.2015, 15:43, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

...

 Hi,

 On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:41:10PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev  wrote:

...

 And why receiving /22's for own company is "legitimate" and for  selling is not?  *one* /22 per LIR is the last-/8 policy

 not "open lots of LIRs, so a single LIR can have multiple /22s in  the end, and circumvent the one-LIR-one-/22-allocated policy".

 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  -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft  LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

 !DSPAM:637,5538ec5f290721315150076!

-- Jens Ott - Gesch?ftsf?hrer -

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500 Fax:   +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Jens Ott Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott

Opteamax GmbH

Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach

Tel.:  +49 2224 969500 Fax:   +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

As mentioned in other mails, creating a LIR to optain /22 V4 without needing it (for that LIR) is the abuse of policy ... So you get an advantage against competitors which respect the last /8 policy and it's intention ... BR Jens On 23.04.2015 15:02, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

Hello Opteamax,

And if i dont sell the IPv4 ? And its just for my company its prohibited ? Its prohibited because i dont have enough money to buy from sellers ?

Thank you.

/-- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager /voitis@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro>

/INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 /contact@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro> !DSPAM:637,5538f04a306641225810352!

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

Hello Poty, There is no more room to cheat.. stay calm. The sellers are too angry because little companies can get /22 And sellers are greedy.. they want more and more. Someone should think to help the little companies.. not to point to the sellers.. "deal with it" Like, if a company have multiple connections.. multiple presents in IX around the globe.. can get a little extra.. i just say.. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis@infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact@infinitytelecom.ro

Hi, On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 14:20, Gert Doering wrote:

...

The last /8 is not there to do "business as usual, based on IPv4" - it is there to enable *new* market entrants to run a few critical things with IPv4, while the main deployment has to happen on IPv6.

This is sliding off-topic, but I don't see lots of new entrants interpreting things this way. For the moment it still is "business as usual based on ipv4" (with *SOME* ipv6 addition) or "no business at all".

Besides, with a free pool larger than 12 months ago, larger than in october 2012 and the second largest among RIRs (after AfriNIC), there still is something that could be done for the new players.

We're reserving this for new players in 5 or 10 years time. Not for "next month". 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

One correction: Not

Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. Octet A can be named "series" and B / 4 is possible block count in each "series".

B is always 64 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 64 = 6208 blocks from last /8.

But

Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B / 4 where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. Octet A can be named "series" and B / 4 is possible block count in each "series".

B is always 128 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 128 / 4 = 6208 blocks from last /8.

Final digits are the same. 23.04.2015, 14:20, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:

Hi, All!

I decided to express my opinion regarding this proposal.

As appears from the proposal summary it pursues the following goals:

1. prevent opening LIR, receiving /22 and selling it 2. prevent making a financial profit from st. 1 3. save IPv4 space from exhaustion

Looking at listed items I can suppose either Elvis is angry at people earning money or really /22 reselling is bad for RIPE and its community. At half part of my letter I prove that /22 reselling has negligible impact on community.

As a way to achieve the goals the proposal offer to substitute st. 5.5 from ripe-623 for:

"LIRs that receive an allocation from the RIPE NCC or a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation."

If pointed change to st. 5.5 is accepted we will face with the following:

- Black market of /22 transfers will grow rapidly. Companies wishing to acquire IPv4 space can compose fake papers with sellers regarding merging/acquisition and send it to RIPE NCC (like IPv4 PI space as it was till recently). Also it should be noted that RIPE NCC can't forbid transfers which are under merging/acquisition since such transfers only reflect internal company(is) structure. - Companies wishing to sell /22 can just wait for 24 months (if they have enough patience of course). - The policy doesn't prevent opening multiple LIR's, merging LIR's together and then using received /22's for own company needs.

In other words the policy doesn't introduce sufficient arrangements to achieve set goals. I.e. in current view the policy is inoperative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's calculate what ratio of transferred /22's from last /8 (T1) to total count of allocated /22's (T2) is.

At https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4... page type into filter "185.0". After that go to web browser console and type: $('#transfers-table-allocations tr').length

For 23 April 2015 we have T1 = 237.

Total count of allocated blocks can be calculated (approximately) as A * B where A and B are octets in allocation address 185.A.B.0/22. Octet A can be named "series" and B is possible block count in each "series".

B is always 64 and A (for now) is 97. Thus totally allocated T2 = 97 * 64 = 6208 blocks from last /8.

Ratio of transferred blocks is 237 / 6208 * 100 ~ 3.81%

From my point of view it's NOT SIGNIFICANT number at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's also calculate how /22 reselling impact on IPv4 exhaustion.

RIPE NCC allocate approximately 10-15 /22's per day of 40-60 /22's per week (S). Averaging will receive S = 50.

Sold /22's have sped up IPV4 exhaustion only for T1 / S = 237 / 50 = 4.74 weeks.

I.e. /22 reselling impact is just 1 MONTH of exhaustion!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summarizing I would like to say that the proposal has questionable reasons of its introduction, also questionable goals and offer inoperative changes to RIPE NCC policy.

Also I believe that listed arguments will help WG to make Impact Analysis.

23.04.2015, 13:29, "Infinity Telecom SRL" <ip@infinitytelecom.ro>:

...

  Hello,

  If this proposal will be accepted: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01

  The price per IP found at "IPv4 Transfer Listing Service"  will be double or even worst.

  Little companies will be out of business.. and we will be one of them.

  To pay double or even more for some spammed IP..  its not a good choice.. only because smart guys with no real internet business hold very large blocks

  This proposal should have more time, its not like any other proposal, this can affect activity for a lot of small companies.

  Thank you.

  --   Cu stima,   Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager   voitis@infinitytelecom.ro

  INFINITY TELECOM SRL  |  Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2   Mobil: +40 0725 677 477  |  Tel: +40 021 7808805  |  Fax: +40 021 7808806   contact@infinitytelecom.ro

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hello Erik, Why someone will come to me to get new IPs, when they can open a LIR by them self ? Without extra cost ? I think everyone that open a LIR right now its because they dont have any chance to BUY from sellers.. Thank you. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis@infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact@infinitytelecom.ro

Nothing bad in the things when people need IPs and get them. IPs should cost nothing. It's just numbers. The luck of IPs - it's the RIPEs falt I guese. As far as we see a lot of IPs are not routed and not used. But some small companies own a lot of IPs space never realy used. Another one trick - that FREE IPs number is growing. https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... https://labs.ripe.net/statistics - LIR number grows becouse it's not other way to get some IPs. So the most profit comes to RIPE, but we still have the same LIR fees, they are not going down as the number of real companys that use RIPE services. Vadim On 23.04.2015 14:55, Erik Bais wrote:

Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hi Gabriel,

I agree with you that it might satisfy a specific need for a company at a certain time to open a new LIR..

I’ve seen LIR’s request for a /22 that didn’t even knew they could still get a free /22 from the RIPE NCC. . . .

The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR, transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR.

As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 procedure (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51 )

And specifically :

Point 3 : The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

The intention of the current policy and why it was made as it was in the past, is to give EVERY LIR 1 additional /22 … and also have enough for new entries in the market ( looking at the new sign-ups of LIR typically in the market, if you look at how that number grew over the last couple years.. ) for at least 5 to 6 years …

Point 3 doesn’t say .. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation or transfer parts or the complete allocation for profit to another LIR.

This policy text was never intended to have new LIR’s being setup and closed just to get cheap IP’s … And I’m pretty sure that if that was foreseen at the time, that the respective author would have closed that gap at the time …

As that is in the past … and this is currently being abused .. It is time to fix this and close this gap.

Regards,

Erik Bais

*Van:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Namens *Infinity Telecom SRL *Verzonden:* donderdag 23 april 2015 13:41 *Aan:* Erik Bais; address-policy-wg@ripe.net *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hello Erik,

Why someone will come to me to get new IPs, when they can open a LIR by them self ? Without extra cost ?

I think everyone that open a LIR right now its because they dont have any chance to BUY from sellers..

Thank you.

/-- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager /voitis@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro>

/INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 /contact@infinitytelecom.ro <mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro>

Erik: Have you responded to the analysis of Vladimir Andreev which shows that the impact of this practice is minimal? From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR, transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR. As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 procedure (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51 )

Erik: Have you responded to the analysis of Vladimir Andreev which shows that

From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR,

Well said Erik, and +1 to the proposal Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: 23 April 2015 17:33 To: 'Milton L Mueller'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net; 'Vladimir Andreev' Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations Hi Milton, the impact of this practice is minimal? transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR.

As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 procedure (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51 )

But I'll gladly reply to it .. His analyses goes wrong at the following line :

Looking at listed items I can suppose either Elvis is angry at people earning money or really /22 reselling is bad for RIPE and its community.

That is a false assumption and an incorrect stab in the back at Elvis, a well known community member, who stepped up at the last RIPE meeting and offered to write the proposal after the RIPE NCC pointed out that they have seen an increase in this practice and are warning about this as a new practice which is against the intent of the actual policy. As a broker and a community member myself, having written several policies myself, what one might do for the community, may not always align with someone their business processes. I've written the policy to allow RPKI for NON-Members .. A policy to remove the multi-homing requirement for PI IPv6 .. a policy to allow the transfer of IPv6 prefixes .. I think that I can safely say that it is a cheap stab in the back to even HINT ... that personal agenda's are behind this proposal .. There is more at stake here than a the business we do (out-side the RIPE mailing list or RIPE meetings.. ) and the one that is paying our mortgage ... either as an ISP or a broker. . . Stating that brokers are behind it ... and that getting IP's via a sign-up of a new LIR is something that is hurting the broker business ... that is just false. I know most of the brokers in the community ... and I agree with Vladimir in his analysis .. this has less than minimal impact ... ( as I see it with a broker hat on .. ) The intent for the reservation from the final /8 is for new companies to start an ISP in the next 6 to 10 years .. is why this was put into the policy ... Because it is close to impossible to start without ANY ipv4 .. And as a bit it more than nothing .. that is why this has been put into policy .. Simply because you can't do any CGNAT .. if you don't have ANY IPv4 ... This way at least you have an option .. besides building a v6 only network. The fact that Vladimir points out that the policy CURRENTLY may not be abused as much as one might think ... that does not mean that for the cases where it is clearly abused... it didn't happen. I think that reading the discussion at the mailing list .. that the intent of some of the people in this community as different as one might hope for.. Personally I don't care if people are going to open a new LIR for themselves or if they are going to use the gained resources in order to sell them ... What I do care about is that the reason why the initial reservation was done in the first place .. from that final /8.. with all good and noble intentions of the proposers at that time ... has now become a cheap loophole for some to be used for their own benefit, with the possible side-effect that others in this very same community will be left out in the future, because we did plan for new entries .. but didn't care enough to fix the loopholes we noticed down the line. Will this proposal fix the issue to dis-allow a second /22 from the final /8 in the same LIR ? Nope. It is still possible to get a /22 transferred into an LIR that already holds a /22 from the final /8. And it is will also still be possible to do a M&A of an LIR into another LIR .. and then you will also have 2 * a /22 from the final /8 ... So is it perfect ? No ... But .. will it make the initial intent of the policy more clear ? or will it move the policy into the right direction ? YES ... Will this have a significant impact on slowing down the consumption rate of the actual reserved pool in the final /8 ? Not really .. Similar as proposing to revoke all un-routed IPv4 space back to the RIR .. and start re-issuing it ... That only delays the inevitable .... APNIC is out, RIPE is out ... ARIN is down to the last .23 of their final /8 ... There is no future in IPv4 beyond 7 years ... ( Is my humble guess.. ) Who knows .. the next Whatsapp or Twitter might come from that one company that registers as an LIR in that delayed 4 weeks because of this proposal ... So, to close of the argument here .. kudo's to Elvis for writing the proposal .. I'm glad to see that it is going to be fixed, because it is the right thing to do.. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Regards, Erik Bais Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.

W dniu 2015-04-23 o 19:04, Aleksey Bulgakov pisze:

Surely it will stimulate to implement IPv6 networks. But the process is very slow. And many higher providers still use IPv4 equipment.

IMO the first big stimulation point to speed-up the IPv6 roll-out was in February 2011, the "last call" was in September 2012. And after nearly 3 years there is no revolution. Still pure V6 networks without any piece of V4 are practically unusable. best regards Tomasz Śląski

Hello John,

...

The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR, transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR.

How do you know that ? If i transfer to someone else or just to my old LIR ? Where its the profit ?

...

Looking at listed items I can suppose either Elvis is angry at people earning money or really /22 reselling is bad for RIPE and its community.

Yes, Elvis its angry, he earn money through this, its a broker. he will be happy if everyone go to sellers instead RIPE..

for their own benefit, with the possible side-effect that others in this very same community will be left out in the future

Oh John, but i was left.. long time ago ! You know why ? RIPE NCC should NOT let LIRs without restricted audit to get almost unlimited IPv4 resources.. just because they said "we are cute and we need more IPv4" And RIPE NCC kindly at that time offered /16 /15 /14 /13 to anyone.. I really think this was the side-effect that we all see it to day very clear. You talk about today community ? What community ? Today community its same community from 2010-2011.. with hands full with IPv4.. and here i talk about transfer list.. How its possible to ask RIPE NCC in 2010-2011 to give you bunch of /15 /16 /17 and to day.. your company not need it any more.. Very hard to understand this.. Right now i should find a why to help new LIRs or old LIRs, but truly companies not ghosts that want to make profit ! Thank you ! -- Best regards, Gabriel Voitis

I think you mix "preventing making profit" and "assure available IPv4 space to new entrants". As I calculated (and presented my results some days ago) reselling has low impact on IPv4 exhaustion. So the only reason (as I see it) is just to prevent earning money. Therefore I have reasonable question: why do some members worry about someone's profit? And PLEASE don't tell me about "abusing". As somebody said earlier in current discussion there are big IP-blocks allocated before Sep. 2012 without real need. Just because "we used all previously allocated space". Holders of such blocks are much strong "abusers". 25.04.2015, 15:42, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>:

 On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

...

  How its possible to ask RIPE NCC in 2010-2011 to give you bunch of /15   /16 /17 and to day.. your company not need it any more..  Some people have started putting their customer base behind NAT44(4) to  shift IPv4 address usage from a customer base that will not complain too  loudly to end up behind NAT44(4), to a customer base where NAT44(4) would  cause a lot of problem.

 So this "need" is always relative. I don't know if you're trying to claim  that the providers didn't need these addresses?

 After the investment in NAT44 has been taken (which might have involved  hundreds of thousands or millions of EUR), some might discover that they  actually can do without some IPv4 addresses they needed before, and thus  they might put it on the market because it makes business sense. This  doesn't mean they didn't need it, and these addresses can always be proven  to be needed, it's just that if the market price for IPv4 addresses is  high enough, then it makes sense to sell.

 It's like my old chairs I have in the corner, that I use occasionally. If  I get enough money for them, I might sell them. Does this mean I do not  need them? Well, I can prove to you that I do use them (thus I have some  kind of need for them), but I can find alternatives if I get enough money.  This is a grey area, not black and white.

...

  Very hard to understand this..

  Right now i should find a why to help new LIRs or old LIRs, but truly   companies not ghosts that want to make profit !  That's what the current policy proposal change is all about, to make sure  that the business case for "start LIR, get /22, transfer /22, shut down  LIR" isn't too much better than the market price for IPv4 addresses.  Exactly to stop people absuing the system for profit.

 Yes, it's profit even if you keep it for yourself and don't sell it,  because you've now lowered your cost, acquiring a resource at a lower  price than you would have if you followed the intent of the policy.

 You seem to mix up intent of policy, and what the policy actually says.  The intent has always been to assure available IPv4 space to new entrants  to the market, so they can get started. So if you did the "start LIR, get  /22, transfer /22, shut down LIR" then you might not have violated the  policy, but you were not following the intent of why the policy is the way  it is. So that's why the policy is now proposed to be changed, so that it  more closely follows the intent behind it.

 --  Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

I can't remain indifferent to such interesting proposal :) So I have to continue (no matter has it formal impact or not). 25.04.2015, 16:28, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:22:15PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 I think you mix "preventing making profit" and "assure available IPv4 space to new entrants".

 As I calculated (and presented my results some days ago) reselling has low impact on IPv4 exhaustion.

 So the only reason (as I see it) is just to prevent earning money.

 Therefore I have reasonable question: why do some members worry about someone's profit?

Because it's a common good, and not there to further individual members' profit.  Or, as your mother might have said every now and then, "just imagine what happens if everyone did this".

But you can stop this discussion now.

First, because it happens outside the formal process anyway, so whatever is said is not relevant for the proposal anyway.

Second, because you've made your point fairly clear.

Gert Doering         -- NetMaster -- 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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hello Gert, We can stop this discuss, yes. But not the RIPE NCC will be the winner here, Elvis and his guys (sellers) should start this proposal: - returned not used space. - put a tax on each IP, LIR with no used IP, will be forced to return IPs or just sell quickly at a lower price.. Thank you. -- Best regards, Gabriel Voitis

Hi, On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 04:52:06PM +0300, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:

But not the RIPE NCC will be the winner here, Elvis and his guys (sellers) should start this proposal:

- returned not used space. - put a tax on each IP, LIR with no used IP, will be forced to return IPs or just sell quickly at a lower price..

If you want to see a different proposal discussed, submit it to the PDP. Every member of the RIPE community is free to submit policy proposals, see https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies (Though technically, the "put a recurring price on each IP address" would not be handled by the address policy working group and the PDP, because that is something the RIPE general meeting (=members) needs to decide) 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

Hi, On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:09:31PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:

Tell me please, how long do you plan to make the impact analysis?

I don't do anything here, the IA is done by the RIPE NCC. Marco said he hopes to have it ready before the RIPE meeting, so we can have a good (and informed!) discussion there. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

Hi, everybody. As we see some people decided to ignore others who want to tell their opposition opinion and welcome those, who agree. I thought the RIPE NCC is community, expressing all people position. But I was wrong. Could you explain how do resellers abuse the system? Why don't you return unused allocations, which are more than all /8? You may ask to delete me from this mail list, but it will confirm my words. 27.04.2015, 11:31, "Elvis Daniel Velea" <elvis@v4escrow.net>:

Hello everyone,

in a previous message I did say that I expected to see a few flying tomatoes towards me, just because I am a broker of IP addresses when coming up with this proposal. However, the low level of personal attacks I have seen on this mailing list in the past few weeks have made me wonder how pathetic some people can actually be...

I would like to thank everyone that defended me on the mailing list, people that do understand why I have sent in this policy proposal, people that know me since I first joined this community more than 10 years ago. I would also like to thank the chairs for stepping in to stop the pathetic attacks to my person and to my business.

Because some have questioned why I have sent in this request, I would like to clarify some things:

1. IPv4 Brokers do not make their money from the /22s they broker. Actually, we sometimes broker /22s (or smaller prefixes) even if we lose money just to help a customer. We normally make a commission from the total transaction price and brokering anything below a /21 means (most of the times) working for free or for a loss. My business has nothing to do with this policy proposal. Actually, if I would care for my business and for making a profit from anything, I should oppose to such a proposal. This policy proposal has been sent because for more than 7 years I have worked at the RIPE NCC and they have injected me with some kind of serum that 'forces' me to do good deeds for the community and for the well being of the Internet :-)

2. This policy proposal has been made after the lengthy discussion at the RIPE Meeting in London and after noticing that the RIPE NCC keeps presenting to the AP-WG that the 'last /8 policy' is being abused by a handful of people. In a previous message I have already pointed to the recordings of those discussions and Andrea's presentation.

3. This policy proposal does not attempt to fix the 'bug' that allows a company/person to open multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s (by way of merger). This bug exists and is well know. It was even mentioned in the rationale and the impact analysis of '2010-02 - the last /8 policy proposal' [1].

4. This policy proposal attempts to fix the problem raised by the RIPE NCC where a company/person opens an LIR, receives a /22, transfers the /22 and restarts the process, thus requesting the /22 with the only purpose to 'transfer' it. The usage of the /22s should be restricted - as the 'last /8 policy proposal aimed' - to the companies that need a bit of IP addresses to operate in a 'still predominant' IPv4 world. I have seen cases where the /22 from the last /8 has been received and transferred in the same day. This 'business style' not only violates the RIPE Policies and the spirit of the 'last /8 policy proposal' [1] but also shows that some only want to make money by abusing the system. This must stop and that is why this policy proposal was sent in.

5. I am upset to see that a co-national (mr Gabriel Voitis from Infinity Telecom) has decided to publicly attack me on this mailing list and I have decided to basically ignore all of his messages, I will not respond to his pathetic attacks. I believe that a company founded in 2011 (with 0 employees since) should just be ignored. Actually, I would like to ask the Chair of the WG to request the removal of Mr Gabriel Voitis (or anyone else that lowers himself at that level) from the mailing list if he continues with his personal attacks towards me or towards my business.

6. I am also awaiting Marco's Impact Analysis to discuss this policy proposal further. This will be my last message before the Impact Analysis is published.

7. Lastly, I welcome the discussion about the size of the allocation from the last /8. I have actually asked Gert to give us a few minutes during the AP-WG meeting in Amsterdam to discuss further. Radu, I will try to get in contact with you as I like most of the ideas you have sent to this mailing list and maybe we can come up with a nice presentation for RIPE70.

Kind regards, Elvis

[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02

--

Elvis Daniel Velea

Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

--  Kind regards, Petr Umelov

Hello, This is the question: "Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15 $/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ? " I am sorry if i upset Elvis or someone else ! I will come in person at next meeting to expres my point of view.. Thank you. -- Best regards, Gabriel Voitis

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015, at 23:07, Gert Doering wrote:

(Though technically, the "put a recurring price on each IP address" would not be handled by the address policy working group and the PDP, because that is something the RIPE general meeting (=members) needs to decide)

... And rejected a few times in different forms. Not to mention NCC's desire to avoid explicit "price per IP" for (non-)tax reasons.

Hello Erik, About this examples: I was aware of this, also will follow another transfer very soon: ro.avacars to ro.infinity And ? Its more cheaper then to buy from the market.. at outrageous price. Your point its useless in my case.. i want to keep my IPs for 10 yrs. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager voitis@infinitytelecom.ro INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 contact@infinitytelecom.ro

This is a good example of a potential bad side effect of the policy

-----Original Message----- In all the recent 'upheaval' it may have escaped notice that the proposal *still* does not address the non-speculative case of a LIR being bought / merged before the 24 month holding period expires.

rgds, Sascha Luck