* Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> [2016-10-19 10:36]:

Hi.

It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

Hi Aleksey, please read how the PDP works: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642 and stop hinting at some conspiracy. That's bullshit. 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

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

Hi.

It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development. As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would take half of a working day to write all them down again). As a very quick and incomplete reminder: - "two levels membership" / differentiated services - "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor") - uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is M&A today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?) - stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud - .... - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-August/011700... - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011565.h... - https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011548.h... No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed. And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within the ideas of the "establishment".

I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem. Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about it anymore? Don't fix something that will no longer exsit in a short time period. On 19 October 2016 at 11:26, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok. If it is better to say I agree that 2015-01 with 24 month period restriction is enough.

Also there is the next text about ALLOCATED FINAL: Assignments and sub-allocations cannot be kept when moving to another provider. This allocation is not transferable to another LIR. What does it mean? Transfers are inpossible, but when the allocations move to another provider this case and should be returned to the NCC?

...

Hi All,

-1 to this.

I think the current policy that prevents tranfers for 24 months is enough.

Regards,

El 19/10/2016 a las 10:05, Marco Schmidt escribió:

...

Dear colleagues,

The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with

an

...

impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

- Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer restriction - Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 available pool

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft

We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make your proposal evaluation easier.

- Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol right beside the list of proposal versions. - The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where the

2016-10-19 12:21 GMT+03:00 Daniel Baeza <d.baeza@tvt-datos.es>: proposal

...

...

is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes no comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is expected.

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (985)635-54-44

-- -- Kind regards. Lu

Hi On 19 October 2016 at 11:48, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:39:10AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:

...

I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem.

Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about it anymore?

Don't fix something that will no longer exsit in a short time period.

So I take this as "non-support" = "opposition"?

I think it is fairly clear here, but it would be good if people can very explicitly state their position, as the to-be-expected large amount of e-mail makes summarization very tedious for the chairs otherwise.

Community is consensus based, not vote based.

What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an reasonable counter argument. Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been addressed reasonablely. But again, I think this is personal so I will not continue this discussion future. Let's go back to the policy.

thanks,

Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- -- Kind regards. Lu

Hi On 19 October 2016 at 12:18, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [..]

...

What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an reasonable counter argument.

Thanks for the clarification.

...

Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been addressed reasonablely.

Thanks for telling me what my job is, I wouldn't have guessed otherwise.

Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some extent the person making a certain argument).

And if I cannot be sure what to make out of a statement, then I can either ask for clarity, or just discard as "random noise".

Agian, voicing concern is not exact same thing as "opposition", I have a concern, if it can be addressed well with reasonable conter argument, I might support. It's the very defination of the process “reaching consensus". But again, I think it is not about the policy in discussion, we should stop here. I agree with Nick just said, it does not fix the core problem: the large eonomical difference between RIPE NCC member fees and market price for IPv4 will permenent exsists, Ramco said puting a sticker "not for sale" to decrease its value, it might be true, but the gap in those two mgiht just be too big(and will be bigger in the future) to close.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- -- Kind regards. Lu

Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some extent the person making a certain argument).

I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from the WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on who is making it and not objectively ? In my opinion there is no space for any such extent and yes your job should be to represent an impartial and objective arbitration. Otherwise, I get the impression you are many times too subjective and try to enforce your personal opinions on others. If you can not be impartial and objective it would be only honourable from you to step down, join us in the debates and let someone else do the job. But as I've noticed (and nobody cared) you're one of the hoarders of last /8 so I really don't expect you to do that. Ciprian

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate ideas to their value. But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. Also NCC should not express opinions but implement policies fairly. It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ? What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can support their ideas, as well as there are many people which I admire and which I can heavily oppose when it's the case. That's what we all shoud do. But you are not one of us, you are the Chair so we have different expectations. Maybe we shouldn't but then what is really your "job" over here ? Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

...

...

Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some extent the person making a certain argument).

I'm certainly not among the fans of Lu but seeing such a statement from

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote the

...

WG Chair is unbelieveble. Really ? Do you ever judge a statement based on who is making it and not objectively ?

If we introduce a policy that will stop abusive behaviour by a certain minority of the community, *or course* those minority will cry out very loudly that they will oppose the proposal. It would be very surprising to see otherwise.

Is it relevant that they are not overly happy with us trying to stop their abusive behaviour? Not very much so.

Of course this requires some community agreement on what "abusive" means, so it's very rarely as clear-cut as this.

I am not *ignoring* people that turn out to be abusive, violating RIPE DB T&C, or are otherwise being an annoyance - but when the discussion is less than clear cut, arguments that are brought forward in a sensible, well considered and *understandable* way are weighted stronger than yelling...

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

* Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> [2016-10-19 13:36]:

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate ideas to their value. [..] What I have expressed are my opinions as objectives as I can. I really don't discriminate and there are many people which I don't like and I can

Yeah I can see how objective you are. But this is good. I can make a blacklist of broker companies just by reading this mailinglist. 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

* Gert Doering

I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy WG.

+1 Tore

On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org> wrote:

...

So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy WG.

Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more thankless by the day.

+100. I’m stunned beyond disbelief that Gert’s (or Sander’s) credentials could even questioned.

I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and block things when they see clear abuse.

Here is the fact: % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255 netname: DE-TRANSNET-20140417 descr: TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH country: DE org: ORG-TA16-RIPE % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255 netname: DE-SPACE-20140417 descr: SpaceNet AG country: DE 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22 which was never announced in the internet. Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a /22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact. I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild accusations. These are the facts. So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community. Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out. Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my opinion ?

No, you are the one wasting my time and if anyone else has something to tell to me I'll be available in Madrid starting tomorrow. Please first read carefully and try to understand what I wrote. I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ? But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't. I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then ... just praise him, what else would you do ? Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> wrote:

Ciprian,

a simple inquiry with the search engine of your choice would have revealed there was a M&A process involved in the transaction below. Making false accusations is probably even worse then ad hominem attacks.

Feel free to reply to me off-list or approach me in Madrid in case you intend to reply to this. That way you're only wasting my time.

thanks

Enno

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:10:59PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

...

I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and block things when they see clear abuse.

Here is the fact:

% Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.

inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname: DE-TRANSNET-20140417

descr: TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH

country: DE

org: ORG-TA16-RIPE

% Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.

inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname: DE-SPACE-20140417

descr: SpaceNet AG

country: DE

13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22 which was never announced in the internet.

Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a /22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.

I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild accusations. These are the facts.

So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community. Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out.

Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my opinion ?

-- Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey

======================================================= Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator =======================================================

Hi, I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04 would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring important changes. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ?

OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate, because I wanted to let this thread die silently.

I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything through the policy 2015-04". Erik Bais is.

I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly not on the aspect of "after a M&A, transfers of acquired space is no longer possible for 24 months".

If you try to actually understand what this document says:

"The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ? resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period."

this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do.

In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states:

"5.5 Transfers of Allocations ... 4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions"

The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple /22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it very clear that that was not wanted.

So, whatever point you are trying to make

- I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals - AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s

...

But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't.

Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and understood my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-) (especially the bits about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase").

... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted corrections in the past.

...

I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then ... just praise him, what else would you do ?

There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so, and put down the chair duties for these.

So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject: line now (which happens to be 2016-03)? If not, please change the Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not related to the specific policies at hand.

Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus.

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

Ciprian Nica, If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST! Can you please for now just shut up with your noise? Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever, can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and possible forced unsub? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:

...

I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and block things when they see clear abuse.

Here is the fact:

% Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.

inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname: DE-TRANSNET-20140417

descr: TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH

country: DE

org: ORG-TA16-RIPE

% Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255"

% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41

% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.

inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255

netname: DE-SPACE-20140417

descr: SpaceNet AG

country: DE

13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22 which was never announced in the internet.

Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a /22 just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact.

I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild accusations. These are the facts.

So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community. Praise him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out.

Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my opinion ?

-- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no

On 19/10/2016 16:37, Ciprian Nica wrote: Gert, Whatever proposal(s) Ciprian supports considers my vote as a "-1". -Hank

The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin than here.

Yes, the noise is what Gert did 2 years ago. Let's get over it and discuss what is really important.

Please express your support for the two important ideas which are "let's ignore the minority because that's what minority does, it's simply against the majority" and "let's ignore people we don't like". Maybe we can set up some criteria for that ? Send your "+1" for the two ideas if you support them. There's no need for praising Gert anymore. I got the idea, he's one of the beloved sons of RIPE community.

Ciprian

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com <mailto:rogerj@gmail.com>> wrote:

Ciprian Nica,

If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST!

Can you please for now just shut up with your noise?

Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever,

can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and possible forced unsub?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk <mailto:office@ip-broker.uk>> wrote: > >> >> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and >> block things when >> they see clear abuse. > > > Here is the fact: > > % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" > > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59 > > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. > > > inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255 > > netname: DE-TRANSNET-20140417 > > descr: TRANSNET Internet Services GmbH > > country: DE > > org: ORG-TA16-RIPE > > > % Version 2 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" > > % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-07-30 15:41 > > % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. > > > inetnum: 185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255 > > netname: DE-SPACE-20140417 > > descr: SpaceNet AG > > country: DE > > > > 13 days after getting a /22 it was merged to Gert's LIR while he has a /22 > which was never announced in the internet. > > Getting a /22 without ever announcing it for over 2 years plus getting a /22 > just to transfer it after a couple weeks, that's a fact. > > I have detailed it as you keep insisting. I'm not making any wild > accusations. These are the facts. > > So Gert did 2 actions which are against the spirit of this community. Praise > him as much as you want for it but don't shut me for bringing this out. > > Support his anti-minority and personal feelings attitude if that's the kind > of chair you like but who gives you the right not to allow me to express my > opinion ? > > >

--

Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com <mailto:rogerj@gmail.com> | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no <mailto:roger@jorgensen.no>

I think the problem in the end is how we consider what is an public IP prefix. In my city (Madrid, Spain, if you have curiosity, welcome to the city hosting RIPE 73), we have taxis. A license to have a taxi is assigned for life and when the owner retires, he can sell it for whatever he wants and the market is able to pay. Of course the number of licenses is limited. We have also a electric car sharing system (car2go) that allow you to rent a car and pay for its usage. When the usage finish, the user return the car, no money returned, can't "sell" it because is not the owner. Of course the number of cars is limited. Those are two views on how to manage scarce resources. For some people public IP allocation should follow the first method. More "capitalist" it can be said, for others, the second, more "social", is the best. I'm of the second group. For me the IPs is something that is lend to me to do my work and not to trade them. Some time ago (before the last /8) I worked with a company that in one moment didn't need anymore their IPs (mother company delegated a range) so advised by me they returned them to RIPE and closed the LIR. That's how I see it. Note: my mail is educated and don't address nobody personally. Please keep the conversation at the same level. Demonstrate you're respected engineers and not hooligans. Enviado desde mi iPhone

PUBLIC IP addresses have given to us to use not to trade. We haven't paid for getting them, and we are not the owner.

today, they are not given to us; we pay to rent them. yes, we are renting integers.

Hi On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:08:55PM +0330, Saeed Khademi wrote:

...

...

today, they are not given to us; we pay to rent them. yes, we are renting integers.

That is because of a wrong policy which allows trading them. If there is a wrong doing, and it is being practiced by many, it doesn't mean it is correct.

When some organizations are selling their IP addresses, it means that they don't need these addresses for their internal use. Which means the reasons they introduced to NCC to justify their need, either do not exist any more or were fake in the first place. Whatever the reason, those blocks have to be returned to NCC pool.

While I understand your frustration, please change the Subject: line when the discussion strays from the proposal being discussed. One day, it might be necessary to fundamentally revisit the policies regarding address transfer in general, but 2016-03 is not the proposal doing this. 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 will vote the opposite of whatever IP brokers vote.Their view is strictly commercial whereas I am not part of that subgroup.

i understand your position. but my problems are up a couple of layers. we have based our community's financial viability on recruiting a lot of new members. while having new blood is a good balance to us old fossils, the culture relied too much on unspoken common perceptions, practices, and goals. we are not good at articulating them and making them accessible to the new blood. so we write more and more complex policy documents, have lots of votes, ... [0]. and the world is changing, becoming more commercial, less academic and public service oriented. and some of us do not do as well with change as we might; a well-known trait of the, sad to say, majority gender. we need to get over it. i do not think we can, or maybe not even should want to, roll things back to the rosier (or so we fondly think) past. but we can try to move forward with some courtesy and civility and an effort to see everyone's viewpoint, especially of those with whom we think we disagree. and we can try to explain our positions and expectations a bit more clearly in order to compensate for the lack of documentation (that is not a plea for more policy documents or paperwork). randy -- 0 - this ongoing wg chair voting thing is such a great example. we had a small problem and the cure is a monster. hence my 'pigasus' (you have to google it; i was there) comment.

If I would moderate the list I would remove people

let's not

I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader says something wrong but he believes is right and a bunch of penguins just sit in the room and applause.

i assure you that this is not just from communist times. are you seeing what is going on in britain, the states, ...? could you please set an example and pick one small issue in this document and discuss its pros and cons? randy

Hi, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or important changes which should never be added just like that, as some changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that has a Subject: that says "2016-03". This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then, if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03 thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment. Right? 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. If I am not wrong, the main idea of the NCC is to switch to IPv6 networks. But it strongly tries to stretch this process. This proposal will create more problems than benefit. If you remember the NCC already restricted multi LIR accounts and then asked members to vote to cancel it. Moreover there is already 24 month restriction for transfers. It is enough. So I opposite this proposal. --- Rgds, Serj 2016-10-20 22:44 GMT+03:00 Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl>:

Hi,

I do not know if this is the right place. If not please direct me to the proper location to "vote" for this proposal.

I support this proposal and thus: I say +1 for the proposal.

With kind regards,

Stefan van Westering

SoftTech Automatisering B.V.

Op 20 okt. 2016 om 12:29 heeft Gert Doering <gert@space.net> het volgende geschreven:

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:24:12PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

I oppose both policies.

For 2015-04 it's obvious, a policy that is supposed to arrange my hair

nicer would make me bold. You either do a cosmetic reorganisation or

important changes which should never be added just like that, as some

changes are minor and shouldn't be discussed (but in a different policy)

As for 2016-03 I think we should set our goals right. Isn't everybody

saying that IPv4 is dead for over 4 years already ? Isn't everybody saying

that the only way forward is to IPv6 and exhausting RIPE's available pool

sooner would help people move to IPv6 ?

Please do NOT mix comments to different policies into an e-mail that has a Subject: that says "2016-03".

This makes it MUCH harder for the chairs to go back to the mail archives later on and see who said what regarding a specific proposal - and then, if I cannot remember "oh, there was a comment about 2015-04 in a 2016-03 thread", you're going to complain that I have ignored your comment. Right?

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 Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

Guess it's a last resort when they see that they are running out of arguments? And amazing that some people have turned to "personal" attacks here rather than discussing the policy at hand.

Either way - well handled Gert, you got my full support.

I agree completely, thanks for voicing it that way. Regarding the policy at hand, even considering Nick Hillard's argument

it's hard to not support this policy. It at least try to solve a almost impossible problem to solve, better to do some than nothing? So a clear support from me.

I support the proposal. The current text appears sufficiently improved to address the concerns raised, as I see it. -- Jan

+1

El 19/10/2016, a las 14:27, Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net> escribió:

...

On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy WG.

+1

I know Gert now for 15+ years and never doubted his integrity.

And thanks for still doing the job - I imagine in 20+ years we all will wonder why anybody ever cared about the distribution of IPv4 addresses as everybody is happily using IPv6

best regards Wolfgang

-- Wolfgang Tremmel

Phone +49 69 1730902 0 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net

As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well but that's neither important. What raises a question is the fact that you say you treat opinions based on the person that issues that opinion and not just the idea and that you induce the idea that a minority's voice should be ignored because it's obvious a minority would just oppose the majority. These are the problems that need to be dealt with. I will never support discrimination based on appartenance to a minority or personal feelings based on previous experience. Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was also a very praised man. Let's stop with the personal feelings between us and discuss the ideas which are the important ones. I will not bring into discussion the "petty crime" that you did by taking advantage of the policies and putting aside a /22 from the last /8. It was wrong of me to mention it and it really is not important at all. Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ?

Since you insist on riding that horse, I can no longer ignore it - so you'll have your answer. On record.

Yes, one of the LIRs that I represent in RIPE member issues (de.space) is holding two /22s out of 185/8. The second /22 came into this LIR together with two /19s, some equipment, an extra employee, and a number of customers when we acquired a smaller regional ISP in 2014.

As per community policy, this is well within letter and *spirit* of the policy - the LIR acquired was not "set up to get a /22 and be bought" (it existed for some 15 years), it was providing ISP services, and there were reasons that do not need to be disclosed that the owners wanted to sell it, which had nothing to do with IP addresses. The acquisition went through the regular M&A process with the RIPE NCC, and all documents were properly scrutinized (and I can tell stories how much detail the NCC will check, and how much paperwork is involved).

Does the number of IP addresses one of the LIRs I can represent hold have any relevance on my serving as WG chair? No.

Am I neutral regarding address policy? Well, I do my best.

Sometimes this is not easy, as I do have strong concerns for the well-being of the Internet globally and in the RIPE region - but this is why there is two chairs here: Sander will double-check every decision made, and everything is public anyway. Summaries are written for a reason, and decisions are based *on posts on the list*, so it does not really matter how neutral I am, as everything is public, and you can double-check the conclusions (and possible call up the arbitration procedure).

So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy WG.

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

Ciprian You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour on this list. Nobody, and certainly NOT Gert or anyone else on a mailing list deserves to be treated that way. -peter

I accept the warning and I also found about Godwin today. Matbe I should have made a more appropriate comparison. I appologize to Gert, once again. Please take some action against poeple which attack me personally just because they don't like what I say. Or maybe my colour, sexual orientation or whatever it is that they would not like about me. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi,

...

Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org <javascript:;>> het volgende geschreven:

Ciprian

You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list.

This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons.

Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an official warning from the chairs.

Ciprian: your language and analogies are unacceptable on this mailing list (well, any mailing list as far as I'm concerned, but I only chair this one). As Peter said:

...

You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour on this list.

On the positive side: I didn't know about Godwin's Law, so I learned something today :)

Thank you, Sander RIPE APWG co-chair

Anno domini 2016 Ciprian Nica scripsit: [...]

Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was also a very praised man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Best Max

On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:

But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer.

In your (utterly flawed) opinion. I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of this list have absolute confidence in the integrity of the WG’s co-chairs. If you think you can do better, feel free to stand the next time the appointment process runs.

As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Gert (or Sander) are “taking sides”.

It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be judging others ?

Here’s a simple rhetorical question for you. Do you think making unjustified ad-hominem attacks and insults like the above will encourage support for your position on this policy proposal? Your behaviour here is unacceptable and way, way, way out of line.

Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your interests ?

No. That’s *my* job. :-) Until you apologise and learn how to conduct yourself properly on this list, Ciprian SHUT UP.

Nick sums up my opinion admirably. Whilst I have some sympathy with the aim, I do not believe it will achieve it, and there will be some unwarranted side-effects. -1 Do not support as is Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 19 October 2016 10:53 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Marco Schmidt wrote:

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.

The purpose of the policy is to restrict the flow of /22 allocations from the RIPE remaining ipv4 pool. While I'm sympathetic to this idea, the policy is not going to fix the problem that it sets out to fix and will create a new set of problems which will be extremely difficult for the RIPE NCC to recover from. Consequently I do not support it, because: 1. the core problem won't be fixed: the outgoing flow of /22s will not be affected in any way because speculators will get allocations using shelf Companies which can be sold as-is, thereby bypassing any policy that the RIPE community might want to consider in this area. The only way to even begin to fix this would be to move back to a needs-based allocation policy. 2. unregistered transfers will become a problem and this may become intractable in the future. This directly goes against the core principals of the RIPE database which is to ensure accurate registration of address holder details. Also, asset divesting is not catered for in the policy. If a company / LIR splits up, there is no way to handle splitting of IPv4 address allocations in the policy. There is no clear way to fix this problem within the principals of the policy. As an aside note, the problem of ipv4 allocation speedup from the RIPE NCC has been exacerbated by the recent RIPE NCC GM resolution: "The General Meeting approves the ability of RIPE NCC members to create additional LIR accounts". The net effect of this is that there is now a divergence between intended RIPE policy and RIPE NCC implementation. This is probably not helpful in the long run. Nick 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.

Hello As Nick said, unregistered transfer will become problem on updating "RIPE Database" and as you know the database is main reason of RIRs mission. Also IP is IP and it's now important it's on last /8 or not.All IPs owner should have same right to transfer/re-allocation. On 10/19/2016 1:23 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

...

We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2016. The purpose of the policy is to restrict the flow of /22 allocations from the RIPE remaining ipv4 pool. While I'm sympathetic to this idea,

Marco Schmidt wrote: the policy is not going to fix the problem that it sets out to fix and will create a new set of problems which will be extremely difficult for the RIPE NCC to recover from. Consequently I do not support it, because:

1. the core problem won't be fixed: the outgoing flow of /22s will not be affected in any way because speculators will get allocations using shelf Companies which can be sold as-is, thereby bypassing any policy that the RIPE community might want to consider in this area. The only way to even begin to fix this would be to move back to a needs-based allocation policy.

2. unregistered transfers will become a problem and this may become intractable in the future. This directly goes against the core principals of the RIPE database which is to ensure accurate registration of address holder details.

Also, asset divesting is not catered for in the policy. If a company / LIR splits up, there is no way to handle splitting of IPv4 address allocations in the policy. There is no clear way to fix this problem within the principals of the policy.

As an aside note, the problem of ipv4 allocation speedup from the RIPE NCC has been exacerbated by the recent RIPE NCC GM resolution: "The General Meeting approves the ability of RIPE NCC members to create additional LIR accounts". The net effect of this is that there is now a divergence between intended RIPE policy and RIPE NCC implementation. This is probably not helpful in the long run.

Nick

Agree with Sascha. -1 for this policy from me. BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru ----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Отправленные: Среда, 19 Октябрь 2016 г 17:36:18 Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) I still oppose this proposal. Rationale: 1) It creates yet another class of address space when the goal should be to have only one class. 2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an IPv4 "black market", something that the "last /8" policy was *specifically* supposed to prevent. This has direct implications for the quality of registry records, particularly with regard to who *actually* controls a resource. 3) The impact on IPv4 resource consumption is determined by the NCC Impact statement to be "small". This small reduction comes at the price of increased bureaucracy and cost for the businesses that make up the membership. 4) The proposal establishes, as the overriding goal of IP(v4) policy, the conservation of IPv4 resources. This should not be the case, the overriding goal should instead be a transition to IPv6 as quickly as possible. (Re-arranging the deck chairs will not prevent the ship from sinking) rgds, Sascha Luck

I didn't have any popcorn but a few nachos were helpful to read the full e-mail. Very good and detailed explanations. +100 from me to Elvis which can also be read as -100 for the policy. For those of you who pretend working, it's friday so you can't trick anyone ;). You'd better read Elvis's mail entirely. Have a nice weekend, Ciprian On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu> wrote:

Hi,

On 10/19/16 11:05 AM, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.

I do not agree with this policy proposal and believe it will not fix anything, instead - it will harm the registry.

...

Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:

- Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer restriction

this fixes only a tiny bit of the problem.

...

- Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4 available pool

this has nothing to do with the policy proposal. I feel it's just some candy offered to sweeten the proposal itself.

This was the short version of my response. Those reading this e-mail during working hours, you can go back to work ;) those that still have some popcorn left, feel free to read further.

Below are the 6 most important reasons why I believe this policy proposal should not become policy:

1. This policy proposal will create two types of members.

a. the members that have received resources before 2012 + the members that can afford to 'buy' IP addresses allocated until recently (-2y from the date this policy proposal would be implemented) b. the members that have only received resources after September 2012 and can not afford to buy IP IP addresses at the market prices (but they can buy an unlimited number of these from the RIPE NCC at ~€4,5 (€3,4/1st year + €1,4/2nd year - redistribution of profit)

The first type of member would be allowed to participate in an IP transfer market that was (until the implementation of this policy proposal, if ever) accessible to everyone and anyone with resources received from the RIPE NCC or an other member. The second type of member will not be allowed to participate in this IP transfer market unless they buy first from an other member.

Some members have already been able to transfer their /22 received from the last /8. With the implementation of this policy proposal (if ever) I feel that we as a community will discriminate between those that have received their last /22 (and want/need, for various reasons to transfer it) 2 or more years before implementation and those that have received less than 2 years before the implementation (or any time after).

I know some of you do not like analogies. But I would compare this with 2 people buying their cars. The first can buy the car and sell it 2 years later, only because the purchase happened even just a few days before the car industry decides that cars can no longer be sold further. So, those that have bought their car and used it for 1.5 years will have to return it (for free) to the car manufacturer while others could have sold it because they were quick in the purchase process and bought it earlier.

So, I think that once this policy proposal would be implemented (if ever) it would discriminate the second type of member as they will not be allowed to participate in a well established IP transfer market with the IP addresses received from the RIPE NCC (and only with the IP addresses they need to buy from the market first).

2. This policy proposal will create yet an other color of IP addresses.

I believe and hope that in the near future we will start talking about the removal of colors and not about addition of more colors. Numbers are just numbers. There is no difference between a number received in 1990, one received after 1992 or one that has status PI or PA. Now, we want to add a color for numbers received after 2012...

My router does not know any difference between these numbers and nobody really cares. Do you think that PI holders care that they are not supposed to sub-assign that space to other customers ? Do you think the RIPE NCC has any say or can really verify who (and most importantly - how someone) is using any of these numbers? The community decided to remove most of the barriers when 2013-03, 2014-02, 2014-05 were approved and implemented. These policy proposals removed all the 'old' requirements and cleaned up the IPv4 policy so much that anyone can now do whatever they want with their IPv4 space (not that they could have not done it in the past, but they would have to lie to the RIPE NCC if they would have ever needed an additional allocation). This policy proposal tends to take us back to previous way of thinking, an old one - I think.

So, just adding more colors and barriers will only complicate things. And I've always liked policies and procedures that are clear and simple. As simple as possible.

3. This policy proposal will drive some IPv4 transfers underground.

We already know and have seen it in previous presentations that where the RIR system tries to impose some limitations, the real world invents something to circumvent those limitations. Currently, with very large allocations, the invention is called a 'futures contract'.

While the RIPE NCC policies will say that ALLOCATED FINAL can not be transferred between LIRs (if this policy proposal will ever make it into policy), most LIRs will find ways to circumvent the policy (as they have always done it). They will create contracts that will stay underground and will be covered by NDAs, they will use loopholes in the M&A process, they will do whatever they need to in order to (sell/buy) the resources they needed.

We've seen that some of the people that participated in the previous discussion of this policy proposal said they will never do such a thing, they will never buy a /22 that says ALLOCATED FINAL. Would you change your mind if your business depended on it? If there was no other way to receive an IP block that you desperately need ? If you have a very important customer that would leave if you can not assign a few more IP addresses? I bet anyone that has a commercial business will think twice and examine again and again where is that border between profit and loss and whether respecting the RIPE Policies to the very last letter really matter that much that they would rather have a loss.

4. This policy proposal will drive the free IPv4 pool to run-out even faster.

What will the LIRs do if they won't be able to find affordable IPv4 in the market any longer? If these /22s that were allocated from the last /8 are no longer available in the transfer market? Well, they will either buy more expensive (pre-2012) IP addresses or go to the RIPE NCC and receive a /22 for less than €5/IP. The board announced publicly that anyone can open multiple LIRs if they need more IPs.

Approving this policy proposal will only remove some 'assets' from the free market and the supply will shrink, therefore driving prices up for whatever is pre-2012 and pushing more members to get the IPs they need from the RIPE NCC by means of setting up multiple LIRs.

5. This policy proposal will affect the registry (in a bad way)

As said in #3, some transfers will be driven underground. We do not see many of those in the RIPE Region at this moment because there is no limitation on who can transfer and when (except for the two years anti-flip bit). If this proposal ever becomes policy, the transfers of the /22s will still happen. If the two parties can not convince the RIPE NCC of their 'M&A' and can not get the IPs changed in the RIPE Database from a name to an other, they will keep on using them with the wrong name.

This will affect the quality of the registry and we will have a registry with two colors. The bleached IPs will be the ones pre-2012 and the rest will have various colours of grey.

6. Artificial explosion of number members

The implementation of the members' vote (on the board decision of blocking the registration of multiple LIRs on the same company name) requires those that need a second /22 to keep it in a second LIR for at least 2 years before this second /22 can be transferred to their first LIR. The second LIR can then, after the transfer, be closed. So the price per IP, has been set to a minimum 2 years membership + sign-up fee - redistribution.

It may actually require the company opening multiple LIRs to keep all of these open if they want to hold on to their IP addresses. It is not very clear what will happen when these companies will want to consolidate all the LIRs they have into one. If they will be forced to return the /22 they got on their second LIR, then they will be forced to keep this second LIR open.

If that's the case, the number of LIRs will explode and will not shrink every time a second LIR ages 2 years and can transfer the /22 to the first. I am unsure whether Remco, as a private citizen but more, as a Board member has given this enough thought. I believe that this policy proposal will make the RIPE NCC more and more unstable with difficulties in making financial plans on the long run.

I worry that these companies that will be forced to keep multiple LIRs open just to hold on to their /22s may take the Board or the NCC to court because they are not allowed (after 2 years) to consolidate their membership into one registry. I am unsure what a court would say when they are told that Remco has multiple hats and his proposal is not made with a Board hat. To most of the world (and I've talked to quite a few people about it), this policy proposal seems to come from the RIPE NCC Board. To many people that I talk to, this policy proposal is seen as a double standard from the NCC Board. On one hand, the Board decided to advise the members to vote to allow companies to open multiple LIRs. On the other hand, one of the Board Members (even if as a private citizen) makes a policy proposal that forces those to pay a la longue for each /22 they received.

There may be other reasons why I do not like this proposal. The ones mentioned above are the most important ones.

Regards, Elvis

Hi Mikael,

These post-2012 members would have ZERO IPv4 addresses from RIPE NCC if it wasn't for the Last /8 policy, we would have completely exhausted in 2012 without this policy.

So they were only able to get addresses at all because these addresses were saved to be used under different policy, thus under restrictions.

I was one of the proponents of this. I have subsequently changed my mind and I am now of the opinion that we should not have any /8 policy at all, and just hand out the rest of the IPv4 space to current LIRs and let the market handle the rest. It's obvious from the discussions here that most people do not appreciate the intention behind the last-/8 policy, and our attempts to try to help new entrants into the market has failed.

I share your sentiment. It's tempting to assume that all the new LIRs are ungrateful and don't appreciate what this community did for them before their companies even existed, and that we therefore failed. I still resist that temptation and hope that the silent majority is actually appreciative that we didn't leave them in the cold.

So let's just get it over with and exhaust all the rest of RIPE NCC free addresses immediately by some scheme to divvy up whatever free resources are left to the members and after that, let all restrictions go.

If we're actually exhausted then some people might get on with deploying IPv6, I hear some people not deploying because they see that RIPE isn't completely exhausted yet.

Yeah, I have heard that repeatedly over the last couple of years. I'm still explaining that the remaining IPv4 resources are a special-case so that newcomers get a small foothold in the IPv4 world as part of their NCC membership and not be left completely to the whims of the market. That there is a remaining pool doesn't mean it's business as usual, or that that pool should be used as a cheap source of an expensive resource for sale on the market. Some people seem to have trouble understanding that. It's indeed disappointing that not all current participants share the selfless principles of the ones that made the policies before them. But those principles and fair policies are what I'm still fighting for. Cheers, Sander

Hi,

I think you are missing that LIRs before 09/2012 are sitting on unused space. Not me, not us LIR after 09/2012. We just need space now to grow our new businesses. Who wants to sell space to who?

If new businesses depend on getting IPv4 addresses to grow then they're on a losing strategy from the start... It's hard, but we've know for many years that that's the way it is. Cheers, Sander

Hi Arash,

If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should not be supported by 2016-03.

I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining pool is not drained by traders, keeping it available for longer for new companies that need them. If the "cheap" pool for newcomers runs out and address transfers become the *only* source for addresses, guess what will happen to the prices. Cheers, Sander

On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:

Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders. Yes there is a percentage drained by traders, but comparing to the actual users that's not that much to put this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other restrictions in place)

Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and made this mess. Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk <http://ipv4.stil.dk/> and many many more who requested huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit. Thanks to traders like Elvis and Ciprian the problem evolved, but they just used an open door and following the rules. While some of you are techies in some ISP or even having your own business, working hard for you, family, employees, making money, some company/IP trader made a huge amount of money in a short amount of time ‘selling’ IP’s. You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust between 2005 and 2011, and you still permitted allocations with almost no real proof of needing from the requester/LIR. This policy will not slow traders, and I think it will really affect the new members that really needed the IP Spaces. A policy that tightens the allocation procedure with real verifications might be better. I do not support this policy

Sorry, bad auto correct:

[...] need to come up with arguments and valid training

That should be "reasoning"

that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful

That should be "not useful"

for the policy development process.

Sorry for the typos, Sander

Bogdan-Stefan Rotariu wrote: [...]

You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust between 2005 and 2011, and you still permitted allocations with almost no real proof of needing from the requester/LIR.

This is simply not true. Between 20115 and 2016 the number of people in Europe who use the Internet grew from 277 million to 499 million, according to the ITU's key ICT data report: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2016/ITU_Key_20... (Excel) That massive growth in Internet usage strongly suggests that there was genuine need for the address allocations made by the RIPE NCC. Regards, Leo Vegoda

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Arash,

...

If old businesses depend on selling IPv4 address to new comers and now looking to put some more value on their old blocks, their strategy should not be supported by 2016-03.

I'm sorry, but it's doing the opposite: it will make sure that the remaining pool is not drained by traders, keeping it available for longer for new companies that need them. If the "cheap" pool for newcomers runs out and address transfers become the *only* source for addresses, guess what will happen to the prices.

I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size. Again, what is our purpose here ? Where is the imagined abuse ? Bring up some actual statistics not fake scary scenarios. Ciprian

...

I've heared this story over and over. Let's protect the pool, let's not waste it and now, after 4 years the pool is almost the same size.

The only reason that the pool is the size it is is because we received some last scraps from IANA. The number of addresses coming from IANA are less and less each time, so that's not sustainable. Without that the pool would be more than half empty by now.

As I've said, I've heard this story with the same explanation over and over for already a few years. I don't think that this story is sustainable either. The truth is almost everybody predicted the pool would last for 5 years and it's about the same size after 4. The same story was repeated over and over that the last /8 is under attack and we must do everything to

Hi, protect it while this was never really documented and there were no actual statistics to show a real problem.

...

Again, what is our purpose here ? Where is the imagined abuse ? Bring up some actual statistics not fake scary scenarios.

I have no purpose but to keep discussions on this list productive and honest. I'll leave the statistics to the working group session and the authors of the policy proposals.

I like facts and figures and I definitely look forward to the wg session. Ciprian

Hi Yuri, A bit of quick feedback:

1) RIPE has reserved space/free pool that it's also will be used under current polices for LIRs, there are a lot of space in it. And those space will be used for new LIRs. You can see that it will be enough for 10-15 years or more.

That number is too optimistic. During the APWG session at RIPE73 we just got analysis from both the RIPE NCC and Geoff Huston, and both independently have shown that the pool has an expected remaining lifetime of 4 to 4.5 years.

2) Policy name should be not like /8 but on all free/reserve space because it should relay on all rest. So name "/8" is not correct.

Yes, the working group is aware of that. The current policy is indeed about all the remaining IPv4 space in RIPE NCC (that is not reserved for other purposes). Policy proposals for cleaning up the policy language are welcome!

[...] But we have in RIPE ~14Mlns IPs more as same as in 2013.

It might look like RIPE NCC is not allocating much IPv4 space, but that impression is skewed. That is caused by IPv4 space coming to RIPE NCC from IANA. The statistics on what to expect from IANA in the coming years show that this is not sustainable and we are actually going through the remaining pool than the number appear to suggest.

4) This policy will make some other type of IPs, we make things more complex, but we should make things/rules/databases less complex. We don't need new one color of IP.

Well, the proposal did just get abandoned, so this implementation detail is definitely no longer relevant.

5) In case of such proposal ISPs will move to IPv6 more slowly. So RIPE push to everybody to go IPv6 and from other size they don't allow that to happen. Everybody understand that at America they just gave out all IPv4 and America is the most IPv6 country. So less limitations - more progress! So what do you select?

I'm not sure we can apply market economics as seen in the ARIN region directly to predict what would happen in the RIPE region...

6) As far as RIPE control limitations - RIPE control the market. And this is not correct.

Yes, the RIPE community sets the rules for resource allocation, assignment and transfer policies in the RIPE region. For this the community has the address policy working group. Setting these policies is its function, this is as intended. Cheers, Sander