Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations
Hi everybody. Let me tell some words about current proposal. Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22 There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request. If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal. -- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov
Hello, Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something? If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that... Regards, Carlos On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi everybody.
Let me tell some words about current proposal.
Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22
There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
-- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov
Hello! Petr means opening multiple LIR's and requesting /22's for all these LIR's at once. if you are lucky RIPE NCC will process you requests one after another and allocate you adjacent range of IP's. 28.04.2015, 09:24, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hello,
Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something?
If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that...
Regards, Carlos
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi everybody.
Let me tell some words about current proposal.
Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22
There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
-- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Hello!
Greetings,
Petr means opening multiple LIR's and requesting /22's for all these LIR's at once.
"Opening multiple LIR's" == workaround, as in "a way to cheat the system".
if you are lucky RIPE NCC will process you requests one after another and allocate you adjacent range of IP's.
It shouldn't be a matter of luck... As you say "allocate you", that implies ONE organization. And ONE organization should only get ONE /22... ;-) Regards, Carlos
28.04.2015, 09:24, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hello,
Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something?
If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that...
Regards, Carlos
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi everybody.
Let me tell some words about current proposal.
Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22
There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
-- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
I already expressed my opinion about multiple LIR's in details in previous letters. "Allocate you" means "you" as contact person. You are not required to have only one organisation. You can open some amount of legal person and then open LIR's for each. After that request /22's for your LIR's as mentioned earlier. 28.04.2015, 09:42, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Hello! Greetings, Petr means opening multiple LIR's and requesting /22's for all these LIR's at once. "Opening multiple LIR's" == workaround, as in "a way to cheat the system". if you are lucky RIPE NCC will process you requests one after another and allocate you adjacent range of IP's. It shouldn't be a matter of luck...
As you say "allocate you", that implies ONE organization. And ONE organization should only get ONE /22... ;-)
Regards, Carlos
28.04.2015, 09:24, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hello,
Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something?
If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that...
Regards, Carlos
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi everybody.
Let me tell some words about current proposal.
Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22
There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
-- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Hello All, This discussion is not solving its self or going anywhere. It's time to stop. The only thing it does at the moment is showing and explaining people publically how to cheat / mislead / misuse resources. Is anyone else interested in how to break which rule "because we can" Breaking laws or rules is perhaps considered a cool thing to do in some people's minds? The majority has a different opinion. My point or question? What will the RIPE NCC do with cases that can be proven to be abusive? Rgds, Ray. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vladimir Andreev Sent: 28. huhtikuuta 2015 9:51 To: Carlos Friacas Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations I already expressed my opinion about multiple LIR's in details in previous letters. "Allocate you" means "you" as contact person. You are not required to have only one organisation. You can open some amount of legal person and then open LIR's for each. After that request /22's for your LIR's as mentioned earlier. 28.04.2015, 09:42, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
Hello! Greetings, Petr means opening multiple LIR's and requesting /22's for all these LIR's at once. "Opening multiple LIR's" == workaround, as in "a way to cheat the system". if you are lucky RIPE NCC will process you requests one after another and allocate you adjacent range of IP's. It shouldn't be a matter of luck...
As you say "allocate you", that implies ONE organization. And ONE organization should only get ONE /22... ;-)
Regards, Carlos
28.04.2015, 09:24, "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>:
Hello,
Noone (in the RIPE/NCC service region) is able to get more than a /22, according to current policies, or did i miss something?
If someone is asking (and actually getting) more than a /22, those allocations need to be revoked -- i honestly thought current policy already included that...
Regards, Carlos
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Petr Umelov wrote:
Hi everybody.
Let me tell some words about current proposal.
Many providers (among them is our company) need to get (e.g.) /20 subnet (not 4 x /22). If we ask the RIPE NCC to allocate 4 x /22, we can get next variants: 1. /20 2. 2 x /21 from different subnets 3. /22, /21, /22
There is only one chance to get /20 100% - make request for 7 x /22 (if the tickets will be processed together). But in this case we will have unwanted 3 x /22 which we can transfer to other LIRs to minimize our expenses. And also we can get different separate 4 x /22 (the worst case) and we have to transfer such blocks and make new request.
If this proposal will be agreed, many providers (new and old) will have material losses. So I can't support this proposal.
-- Kind regards, Techincal Director FastTelecom Petr Umelov -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Hi all, I'm not sure if this model has been mentioned in a RIPE meeting or via the list, but here in the UK, Ofcom (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ telco regulator) allocates telephone numbers to communication providers. These are free and can be thought of kind of like IPv4. For the bigger cities you get 10k blocks, for the smaller cities you get a 1k block (think like a /22). Now there are 20+ cities that are running out of telephone numbers so in order to get more you have to present a business case, customer purchase order and also show your utilisation figures. For these 20+ cities you also get charged £0.40 per number per year for any you hold. If you port them to a new company or the customer moves to another provider, this comes down to £0.20. It is a weird system but does slow down the usage and forces others not using to return them. It doesn't solve the long term problem of them running out, but that is being solved by requiring the full area code being dialled not just the local part (will explain offlist if anyone is interested). I know big network operators would just pay a cost, but does any of above seem relevant to getting things returned to the pot? I know it doesn't solve them running out and similar things have been discussed, but I thought I'd mention it in case it stimulates any ideas. Thanks, Gavin.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
I already expressed my opinion about multiple LIR's in details in previous letters.
"Allocate you" means "you" as contact person. You are not required to have only one organisation. You can open some amount of legal person and then open LIR's for each. After that request /22's for your LIR's as mentioned earlier.
I don't see a problem in one person managing multiple LIRs. Really, i understand that managing LIRs for 3rd parties can be a service. A big company can own dozens of other small companies and get a /22 from each of them -- but it shouldn't. In the case it wants to merge, it should return all the /22s to the NCC pool except one. If the "well-known workaround" can't be fixed (and wrong-doings reverted) then the policy is useless. ps: I've always been a strong supporter of v6 deployment, but i never agreed with the idea that we should run-out v4 aggressively. Regards, Carlos
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:09:17PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
A big company can own dozens of other small companies and get a /22 from each of them -- but it shouldn't. In the case it wants to merge, it should return all the /22s to the NCC pool except one.
1) Again, this can be a perfectly legitimate business case. 2) A holding company can own many subsidiaries and there is no (and neither should there be a) requirement to even inform the NCC of this fact as long as no merging of LIRs is required. 3) a requirement to return all but one /22 in case of a merger is unrealistic and would mean an infringement on, again perfectly legitimate, business transactions between LIRs. 4) Since the M&A procedure is not a matter of address policy, this is the wrong place to debate it anyway. rgds, Sascha Luck
participants (6)
-
Carlos Friacas -
Gavin Henry -
Jetten Raymond -
Petr Umelov -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Vladimir Andreev