Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Hi, although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business processes. A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012. I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market. If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible. To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation. I cannot support this policy regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree with Riccardo on this. I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit is not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has supported this concern. If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not workarounds against the policy added. On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
Hi,
although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business processes.
A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012. I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
I cannot support this policy
regards Riccardo
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net
WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285
-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Kind regards, CTO at *Foton Telecom CJSC* Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861> /"Amazing photons Carry our data worldwide Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS/
Hi. Why are we talking about 185./8 only? There are many unused allocations bigger than /8 but the NCC doesn't want to pay attention to them. E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it. There is 2015-01, that prevents speculations. And I don't see any reasons to implement 2016-03. "Sergey" <gforgx@fotontel.ru> wrote:
Completely agree with Riccardo on this.
I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit is
not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has supported this concern.
If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not
workarounds against the policy added.
On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
Hi,
although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a
I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business
A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make
big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. processes. possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012.
I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
I cannot support this policy
regards Riccardo
--
Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net
WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285
-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Kind regards, CTO at Foton Telecom CJSC Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE AS42861 on PeeringDB, Qrator, BGP.HE.NET
"Amazing photons Carry our data worldwide Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS
On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
We are not. You might be though. :-) Current policy applies to ALL IPv4 address space held by the NCC. Or that may be obtained by the NCC somehow, say because it was returned by an LIR or a future allocation from IANA of freshly reclaimed space. This policy has been commonly called “last /8” as a sort of shorthand by the community. Sadly, this name is misleading. Some have assumed the policy only applies to allocations made by the NCC out of its last /8: 185/8. It doesn’t. It applies to all allocations from now on regardless of which chunk of a /8 held by the NCC gets chosen to issue a one-time-only /22 to an LIR. The policy became known as “last /8” because it came into effect as soon as the NCC had to make an allocation from its final /8 allocation from IANA. ie An LIR's request was too big to be satisfied from a block elsewhere in the NCC’s pool of available space and therefore had to come from an allocation out of 185/8. At that point, the previous policy of needs-based allocation ended and LIRs could only get a single /22.
On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are we talking about 185./8 only? We are not. You might be though. :-) Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression
Hi, On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote: that it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting. If that is the case, let's withdraw it and stop the noise :) If not, Remco, please let us know what you want to do with it as it is obvious that this version will never be accepted. thanks, elvis
I was disagree with Elvis about 2015-01, but I agree now. Dear, chairs. Could you, please, tell if this proposal is opened for discuss or withdrawn. :) 7 июня 2016 г. 1:23 пользователь "Elvis Daniel Velea" <elvis@v4escrow.net> написал:
Hi, On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
We are not. You might be though. :-)
Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression that it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting.
If that is the case, let's withdraw it and stop the noise :) If not, Remco, please let us know what you want to do with it as it is obvious that this version will never be accepted.
thanks, elvis
Hi, On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:30:44AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
I was disagree with Elvis about 2015-01, but I agree now.
Dear, chairs. Could you, please, tell if this proposal is opened for discuss or withdrawn. :)
As per https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-p... it is in discussion phase until 21 Jun 2016. Easy to find with google. Since you did not see an announcement either by Remco or Marco that it has been withdrawn, it has not - the proposer is free to take the feedback from the discussion phase and work that into a "v2" of the proposal, for example, instead of withdrawing. 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 6 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> wrote:
Hi, On 6/7/16 1:17 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
We are not. You might be though. :-) Why are we still talking about this proposal? I was under the impression that it will be withdrawn soon after the RIPE Meeting.
I was only explaining what resources are covered by the current policy (ie last /8). Nothing to do with 2016-03. That proposal’s deader than Elvis. Not you obviously, the other one who played Vegas a lot in the 70s. :-)
Hello. There are a lot of negative opinions about this proposal. I hope that this proposal will be withdrawn. BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru
Hello, I agree with Alexey. Too bad negative effect. // Nikolay@NTX On 10.06.2016 14:32, Alexey Galaev wrote:
Hello. There are a lot of negative opinions about this proposal. I hope that this proposal will be withdrawn.
BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru
So, if this policy is approved, all allocations will have 'final-allocated' status and return to the NCC if there are more than 2 allocations with 'final-allocated' status. Or I don't understand this policy and it should be changed 7 июня 2016 г. 1:17 пользователь "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com> написал:
On 6 Jun 2016, at 22:54, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are we talking about 185./8 only?
We are not. You might be though. :-)
Current policy applies to ALL IPv4 address space held by the NCC. Or that may be obtained by the NCC somehow, say because it was returned by an LIR or a future allocation from IANA of freshly reclaimed space.
This policy has been commonly called “last /8” as a sort of shorthand by the community. Sadly, this name is misleading. Some have assumed the policy only applies to allocations made by the NCC out of its last /8: 185/8. It doesn’t. It applies to all allocations from now on regardless of which chunk of a /8 held by the NCC gets chosen to issue a one-time-only /22 to an LIR.
The policy became known as “last /8” because it came into effect as soon as the NCC had to make an allocation from its final /8 allocation from IANA. ie An LIR's request was too big to be satisfied from a block elsewhere in the NCC’s pool of available space and therefore had to come from an allocation out of 185/8. At that point, the previous policy of needs-based allocation ended and LIRs could only get a single /22.
Hi, On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:54:04AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.
That would certainly be welcome, but there are no contractual or policy requirements that could *force* the LIR to return the space (or would allow the RIPE NCC to take it back). Allocation policy has always been geared to "here's a block, you fill it, then you come back and ask for the next block" - the situation "here's a block, and if you do *not* fill it, give back the unused part in <x> years time" just did not happen during the growth years of the IPv4 Internet, so the policy does not have any clauses for it. Changing the policy to apply to old blocks would be retroactively applying policy to *holders*, which is generally a no-go area (and I disagree with some members of the community here on what is "retroactive" - I think that affecting future(!) *actions* regarding a block is ok, but changing the de-facto *status* of something people rely on is highly problematic) 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 Aleksey, Il 06/06/2016 23:54, Aleksey Bulgakov ha scritto:
Hi.
Why are we talking about 185./8 only? There are many unused allocations bigger than /8 but the NCC doesn't want to pay attention to them.
As you can read on the top of 2016-03 proposal states: * Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA This would apply to the whole reamining pool.
E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.
There is 2015-01, that prevents speculations. And I don't see any reasons to implement 2016-03.
"Sergey" <gforgx@fotontel.ru <mailto:gforgx@fotontel.ru>> wrote:
Completely agree with Riccardo on this.
I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit
is not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has supported this concern.
If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not
workarounds against the policy added.
On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
Hi,
although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion
there's a big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use.
I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business processes.
A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012. I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
I cannot support this policy
regards Riccardo
--
Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net <mailto:rgori@wirem.net>
WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285
-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo@wirem.net <mailto:info@wirem.net> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Kind regards, CTO at Foton Telecom CJSC Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE AS42861 on PeeringDB, Qrator,BGP.HE.NET <http://BGP.HE.NET>
"Amazing photons Carry our data worldwide Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS
regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
*5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs* 4. All allocations will be marked in the RIPE database as ‘ALLOCATED FINAL’ 5. An allocation marked "ALLOCATED FINAL" is valid as long as it remains with the LIR it was allocated to. If an LIR, due to mergers, acquisitions or other means gains additional allocations marked "ALLOCATED FINAL", all but the equivalent of a single /22 will be de-registered by the RIPE NCC within 180 days. More than one /22 from the 185./8 are additional and others are not. What will happen with already received additional /22 from the 185./8? 7 июня 2016 г. 15:14 пользователь "Riccardo Gori" <rgori@wirem.net> написал:
Hi Aleksey, Il 06/06/2016 23:54, Aleksey Bulgakov ha scritto:
Hi.
Why are we talking about 185./8 only? There are many unused allocations bigger than /8 but the NCC doesn't want to pay attention to them.
As you can read on the top of 2016-03 proposal states:
- Explicitly state that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA
This would apply to the whole reamining pool.
E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.
There is 2015-01, that prevents speculations. And I don't see any reasons to implement 2016-03.
"Sergey" <gforgx@fotontel.ru> wrote:
Completely agree with Riccardo on this.
I've addressed this question via IRC during GM, why the strict audit is
not possible - and got a response that it's against policy. Google has supported this concern.
If there is problem with policy, the policy should be changed, not
workarounds against the policy added.
On 06/07/16 00:09, Riccardo Gori wrote:
Hi,
although I understand the spirit of this policy in my opinion there's a
I really don't get how a space can be de-registered once announced and in use and after have been allocated under regular procedures and business
A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make
big problem behind it: seems that has been thought for reasoucers not in use. processes. possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012.
I think this really creates barrier to ingress in the market.
If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. Anyway we all know that's quite impossible.
To address the problem of abuse RIPE NCC should enforce audit and check if the LIR "make assignement(s)" as stated in the policy. This could be a way to get rid of buy/sell just for speculation.
I cannot support this policy
regards Riccardo
--
Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net
WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285
-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Kind regards, CTO at Foton Telecom CJSC Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 nic-hdl: SS29286-RIPE AS42861 on PeeringDB, Qrator, BGP.HE.NET
"Amazing photons Carry our data worldwide Never seem to stop" (c) JUNOS
regards Riccardo --
Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943
WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285
-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi! Aleksey Bulgakov schrieb am 07.06.2016 um 15:22:
What will happen with already received additional /22 from the 185./8?
My suggestion is, that the proposal should also apply for those LIRs. But of course you have to give them time to re-allocate their IP space, before they have to give the additional /22's back. I would think about 1-3 years. How many multiple last-/22 allocations do we talk about? 10? 1000? regards, Thomas
Hi, Re-allocate their IP space to what? Would be any new allocation for them in 1-3 years? Regards, Arash -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of DI. Thomas Schallar Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 4:54 PM To: Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Hi! Aleksey Bulgakov schrieb am 07.06.2016 um 15:22:
What will happen with already received additional /22 from the 185./8?
My suggestion is, that the proposal should also apply for those LIRs. But of course you have to give them time to re-allocate their IP space, before they have to give the additional /22's back. I would think about 1-3 years. How many multiple last-/22 allocations do we talk about? 10? 1000? regards, Thomas
Hello Arash! Arash Naderpour schrieb am 09.06.2016 um 11:53:
Would be any new allocation for them in 1-3 years?
No, of course not.
Re-allocate their IP space to what?
Either to remaining IP fragments in older blocks or to CGN and/or IPv6. The very same what any provider has to do with its customers. As I asked before: how many ISPs do have more than one "final" /22 in Use? If this would be a small number, we can skip any discussion about them and what to do. regards, Thomas
Dear Thomas, Please allow me to answer your question: On 2016-06-09 14:46:09 CET, DI. Thomas Schallar wrote:
As I asked before: how many ISPs do have more than one "final" /22 in Use?
Currently we see 414 LIRs that have more than one /22 from the range 185/8 registered to them. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
On 9 June 2016 at 15:04, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Currently we see 414 LIRs that have more than one /22 from the range 185/8 registered to them.
That's quite interesting. I had a look in the DFZ (as received from Level(3) this afternoon) I can see 13742 advertisements of space from 185/8, 5 of them are for /21 and 1 is for a /20. The advertisements include de-aggregations (e.g. a /22 and a /23 for the same prefix) Looking a the /22 adverts. there are 5613 in the DFZ with 4090 distinct AS origins. This means that over 1500 AS's are advertising more than one /22. Aled
Aled, The data you provided is not relevant. For example, we have a significant number of Customers who have a number of servers with us, are LIRs themselves, but we do BGP for them, as such there is a significant number of /22s originated from our AS, yet not owned, nor operated by us. With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel:08750969>. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net<mailto:abuse@clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 10 Jun 2016, at 14:17, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris@googlemail.com<mailto:aled.w.morris@googlemail.com>> wrote: On 9 June 2016 at 15:04, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net<mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> wrote: Currently we see 414 LIRs that have more than one /22 from the range 185/8 registered to them. That's quite interesting. I had a look in the DFZ (as received from Level(3) this afternoon) I can see 13742 advertisements of space from 185/8, 5 of them are for /21 and 1 is for a /20. The advertisements include de-aggregations (e.g. a /22 and a /23 for the same prefix) Looking a the /22 adverts. there are 5613 in the DFZ with 4090 distinct AS origins. This means that over 1500 AS's are advertising more than one /22. Aled
On Friday, 10 June 2016, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
Aled, The data you provided is not relevant.
For example, we have a significant number of Customers who have a number of servers with us, are LIRs themselves, but we do BGP for them, as such there is a significant number of /22s originated from our AS, yet not owned, nor operated by us.
I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs (rather than just taking IP address space from you). From what you say they don't run their own networks - do they assign resources to their downstream customers? Not from the 185/8 allocation obviously. Aled
Hi, On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Aled Morris wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
Aled, The data you provided is not relevant.
For example, we have a significant number of Customers who have a number of servers with us, are LIRs themselves, but we do BGP for them, as such there is a significant number of /22s originated from our AS, yet not owned, nor operated by us.
I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs (rather than just taking IP address space from you). From what you say they don't run their own networks - do they assign resources to their downstream customers? Not from the 185/8 allocation obviously.
simple reasons: - get more space than your upstream is willing to give to you - you want but cannot get pi space so getting your own pa space is a good substitute Greetings Christian -- Christian Kratzer CK Software GmbH Email: ck@cksoft.de Wildberger Weg 24/2 Phone: +49 7032 893 997 - 0 D-71126 Gaeufelden Fax: +49 7032 893 997 - 9 HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart Mobile: +49 171 1947 843 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer Web: http://www.cksoft.de/
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, at 17:19, Aled Morris wrote:
I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs (rather than just taking IP address space from you).
Hi, They have "their own" space, one /22 for them alone. Not sure this is something easy (even less cost-effective) enough to obtain these days.
From what you say they don't run their own networks - do they assign resources to their downstream customers?
Don't know about Dominik's customers, but some of them do. You can find several kinds of network-less service providers out there in the wild. Then there's the issue of things done "inside out" : ISPs running on ASSIGNED PI (not very willing to deal with RIPE / RIPE NCC) and end-users on ALLOCATED PA (willing to do so).
On 11 June 2016 at 13:01, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016, at 17:19, Aled Morris wrote:
I'm curious to know what benefit such customers perceive from being LIRs (rather than just taking IP address space from you).
Hi,
They have "their own" space, one /22 for them alone.
I agree that's all they want. Do we really want dozens (hundreds even) of "members" who have no interest whatsoever in the good of the community, participating in the policy making, education or technical standards? Worst case, what if they got together and voted to demutualise RIPE? Realistically, I'd rather we went back to offering /24 (or less) of PI space to end users via their existing LIRs rather than burning /22's for end-users who think they might be missing out if they don't lay claim to their IPv4 space now. Many of the ISPs I know are advising their large business customers to "register with RIPE for IPv4 space" without really bothering to understand, or caring, they are joining a membership organisation. Aled
On 11/06/2016 21:38, Aled Morris wrote:
Do we really want dozens (hundreds even) of "members" who have no interest whatsoever in the good of the community, participating in the policy making, education or technical standards?
Worst case, what if they got together and voted to demutualise RIPE?
That is called "democracy" Damn poor, there is so many of them. -- Jack Kwaoo noc More details about KWAOO can be found at: https://as24904.kwaoo.net/
Hi, Small clarification:
Do we really want dozens (hundreds even) of "members" who have no interest whatsoever in the good of the community, participating in the policy making, education or technical standards?
Being a member of the RIPE NCC has nothing to do with policy making (or education or standards for that matter). This is a RIPE community working group, not a RIPE NCC working group. Everybody is welcome to participate in this working group, not just RIPE NCC members. See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe Cheers, Sander
On 11 June 2016 at 21:05, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Being a member of the RIPE NCC has nothing to do with policy making (or education or standards for that matter). This is a RIPE community working group, not a RIPE NCC working group. Everybody is welcome to participate in this working group, not just RIPE NCC members.
Sorry yes, I was clumsy in my wording. I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member decisions. Aled
Hi Aled,
Sorry yes, I was clumsy in my wording.
No apologies required! I just wanted to make sure that everybody reading the messages (and archives) understands the difference. Some things are obvious for people who have been around for some time but can be confusing to those who haven't. I was just making sure that everybody understands what is being discussed :) Cheers! Sander
I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member decisions.
this may seem a bit strange, but there are isps out there who are interested in running a network, and not internet policy, governance, and other things about layer seven. there really are. randy
On 11 June 2016 at 21:59, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member decisions.
this may seem a bit strange, but there are isps out there who are interested in running a network, and not internet policy, governance, and other things about layer seven. there really are.
OK if they are Internet Service Providers, but my concern is RIPE are giving address space to end users, basically because there is no PI mechanism anymore. So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only option to be "become an LIR" with the result that we erode the free pool faster (i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.) Aled
Agree on this. It's not only we erode the free pool faster, but we get a lot of unconscious RIPE NCC members this way. On 06/12/16 00:44, Aled Morris wrote:
So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only option to be "become an LIR" with the result that we erode the free pool faster (i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.)
Aled
-- Kind regards, CTO at *Foton Telecom CJSC* Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861> http://ipv6actnow.org/
* Aled Morris
So for all those people who argue we should be preserving the remaining address space in order to allow for new ISPs entering the market for as long as possible (which I agree with), we need to be realistic about end users who want (what was once called) PI space and not make the only option to be "become an LIR"
It's not the only option, PI blocks may still be acquired: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tran... https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#IPv6_PI_Assignments
with the result that we erode the free pool faster (i.e. allocating /22 when a /24 would be more than adequate.)
The simplest way of slowing down the allocation rate is probably to reduce the allocation size from /22 to either /23 or /24. Tore
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016, at 22:50, Aled Morris wrote:
I am just surprised that we encourage organisations who don't participate (or have any interest in participating) in the RIPE policy process, or any of the mechanics of Internet governance, to join the RIPE NCC and therefore get a vote on budget and board member decisions.
Well, hopefully (depends for who), they don't (https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/voting-report). At least not yet. But you do have a valid point. Just hope they don't come with the idea that the NCC should stop following community's policies (and hand things over to national governments, or decice policies to be followed at the GM). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
participants (19)
-
Aled Morris -
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Alexey Galaev -
Arash Naderpour -
Christian Kratzer -
DI. Thomas Schallar -
Dominik Nowacki -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Jack -
Jim Reid -
Marco Schmidt -
NTX NOC -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Randy Bush -
Riccardo Gori -
Sander Steffann -
Sergey -
Tore Anderson