Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. *"* *Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 <http://5.132.0.0/16> - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 <http://5.224.0.0/15> - allocated on 06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out formillions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders ofthe last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands."* My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then bribe people. You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, <address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net> wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Carsten Schiefner) 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Ciprian Nica) 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (LIR (BIT I 5)) 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Mikael Abrahamsson) 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 From: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> To: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705@schiefner.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Dear Vladimir,
On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea.
first of all, I am not angry.
I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these see-through non-arguments.
Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt to blurr this discussion.
Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to a proposal and objecting to it.
In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up with.
In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear reasons for it.
It is really that simple.
P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support his statements.
I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the fuzz.
Thanks and best,
-C.
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +0300 From: Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe@opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008@ip-broker.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi,
I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.
I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut.
Let me give you an example:
- 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012
All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).
Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in Netherlands.
The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.
If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems.
So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy"
I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while the problems might become worse.
Ciprian
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000 From: "LIR (BIT I 5)" <LIR@bva.bund.de> To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Message-ID: <C9593F67FE4B1342BBC009DF73251B2C8D6BFA1F@S01KR974.intern.dir> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi@all, +1 for Jens +1 for the proposal 2015-01 Kind regards, Carsten Br?ckner LIR de.government
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
Hi Borhan, Hi List,
hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now...
Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing the community!
To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change only appear more important.
I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.
The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.
So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy"
Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the community actually want something much more restrictive!
BR Jens
Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h@gmail.com>:
I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
-1 to this proposal
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott
Opteamax GmbH
Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach
Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de
HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> To: Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506100936040.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:
When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it.
Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the goodness of their heart to give addresses away.
Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit.
Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.
Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.
Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to help.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100 From: Tom Smyth <tom.smyth@wirelessconnect.eu> To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Message-ID: <CAJ3iMJQ=1eL-0KoCXko1pfTUzs_jnOGCXU= VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi, We @ as198988 support the proposal ... Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem..
I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with an ability to create backward compatible translation systems
+1 mofos On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:
When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to
sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it.
Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the goodness of their heart to give addresses away.
Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking
advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit.
Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.
Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.
Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to help.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi Lu, On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Ciprian:
Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds:
I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse.
Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned.
Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time the allocations were made to you as a natural person.
My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy.
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space.
That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify).
Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this:
Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
If there are any questions do please let me know.
Regards,
David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst
More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again.
Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? Yours, Ciprian Nica
Hi See my reply below: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:
Hi Lu,
On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
Hi Ciprian:
Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds:
I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse.
"Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent.
Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of
three allocation you have mentioned.
Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time the allocations were made to you as a natural person.
The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration. But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list.
My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy.
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes. However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal. And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business.
You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space.
That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.
Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion?
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify).
Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this:
Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
If there are any questions do please let me know.
Regards,
David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst
Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false.
More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again.
Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?
Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss it here).
Yours, Ciprian Nica
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
"Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent.
If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ?
The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration.
But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list.
% Version 1 of object "5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object. inetnum: 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 netname: NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 descr: Heng Lu trading as "OutsideHeaven" country: NL org: ORG-HLta1-RIPE admin-c: OHS18-RIPE tech-c: OHS18-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: OH-MNT mnt-domains: OH-MNT mnt-routes: OVH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered 5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week later there were no more IPs left.
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes.
He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only support my opposition to this proposal.
However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal.
I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had the largest IPv6 deployment at that time.
And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business.
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space.
That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.
Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion?
Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody was using it on this list.
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify).
Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this:
Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
If there are any questions do please let me know.
Regards,
David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst
Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false.
I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I should have said the "guys from the top floor".
More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again.
Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?
Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss it here).
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". When you accuse the 2 russians and other smaller profitors of abuse, then I can not take it seriously. You're too big compared to them (I hope you don't take this personally too). And now that you have shed some light and told us that Elvis, the inititor of this proposal is the one that approved all that outrageous allocations to you, I can only hope for some other sane persons to see which problems needs to be solved. Ciprian
Hi Ciprian: Your Email are full of false claim and accusation, none of them making sense as well as speaking from your knowledge, all of them are from your speculation, please verify your data before you post anything, and please stop post any of the personal information here any more. I will kindly ask chair again to stop such discussion about me and my company. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:
Hi,
On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
"Abuse" is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent.
If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ?
"Previous abuse", where is your support for such accusation?
The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration.
But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list.
% Version 1 of object "5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.
inetnum: 5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255 netname: NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906 descr: Heng Lu trading as "OutsideHeaven" country: NL org: ORG-HLta1-RIPE admin-c: OHS18-RIPE tech-c: OHS18-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PA mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: OH-MNT mnt-domains: OH-MNT mnt-routes: OVH-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered
5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week later there were no more IPs left.
OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be relevant anyway.
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes.
He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only support my opposition to this proposal.
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence. "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. " And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation.
However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal.
I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had the largest IPv6 deployment at that time.
Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common knowledge.
And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business.
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space.
That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.
Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion?
Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of /22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody was using it on this list.
Well, people can kill people does not justify you can do the same, as it
is about me this time and I personally really not happy about this, so I will do possible things to stop such unlawful activity about us.
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify).
Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I received confirming this:
Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up to 3 working days. This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
If there are any questions do please let me know.
Regards,
David Hilario RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst
Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false.
I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I should have said the "guys from the top floor".
More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I
think
this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again.
Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable. Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?
Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss it here).
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
When you accuse the 2 russians and other smaller profitors of abuse, then I can not take it seriously. You're too big compared to them (I hope you don't take this personally too). And now that you have shed some light and told us that Elvis, the inititor of this proposal is the one that approved all that outrageous allocations to you, I can only hope for some other sane persons to see which problems needs to be solved.
Ciprian
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, Gert, sorry but I don't want to leave things unclear so I'll send this one last reply to Lu. Please don't take into consideration any discussions related to this issue when analyzing the 2015-01 approval. It is off-topic but I think it shows a problem that needs to be understood and maybe addressed.
"Previous abuse", where is your support for such accusation?
In my opinion based on the facts that I already mention this can be called an abuse much more than what the 2 russians have done.
OutsideHeaven is the company name, how it legally structured should not be relevant anyway.
No, as anyone can read OutsideHeaven is YOUR trade name. Maybe today you have a corporation but on that time it was you (the person) trading as some brand.
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation.
You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions.
Large IPv6 deployment does not justify IPv4 need, I think this is common knowledge.
It was just a supporting argument. Of course the main ones were that it was a very large ISP with huge growth, millions of customers, thousands of employees.
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests). Ciprian
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes. Best, -M<
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch> wrote:
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
Silvia
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
I would 2nd that! When I have nothing better to do, I sit here reading this book :-) Regards to you all :-) Danial Subhani PRO-NET INTERNET SERVICES LTD Tel: 0870 835 6911 Fax: 0870 835 6912 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. It is strictly prohibited to disseminate, distribute or copy this communication if you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message. If you have received this communication in error, please accept our apology. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Silvia Hagen Sent: 10 June 2015 15:47 To: elvis@velea.eu; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment Silvia -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. [...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4311/9985 - Release Date: 06/09/15
Ciprian, Lu, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: [..]
I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has been said (and is publically available in the transfer statistics anyway), while going into personal motives and attacks is uncalled for and not relevant for the proposal. So please take it to private mail. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert: I am not from a "side" I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self. I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list, ever again. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Ciprian, Lu,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: [..]
I think enough has been said on both sides, and the amount of information the conversation had which might be relevant to the proposal at hand has been said (and is publically available in the transfer statistics anyway), while going into personal motives and attacks is uncalled for and not relevant for the proposal.
So please take it to private mail.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi,
I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self.
I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list, ever again.
I didn't mention your name, it was an example. Like you there are others. I just showed the IPs which, after you sold them, are registered to someone else so it would not have been that obvious that you are behind them until you came up and took it presonally. My intent was to point the finger at the situation and not at you. Like we are analyzing the situation with the last /22s and not Mr. Bulgakov or Quicksoft. Ciprian
Hi, Dne 10.6.2015 v 10:50 Lu Heng napsal(a):
My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy.
Sorry for off topic, but I would really appreciate some more details to support your statement. According to RIPEstat, none of your allocations have been seen in BGP in the year it has been allocated. Even though there was this policy that allocations should consider current needs plus 3 months only. I cannot understand how come you got another allocations even though your previous were still not functional on the Internet. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just cannot think of any plausible explanation. Best regards, Ondřej Caletka
Hi It was definitely functional and announced. But on the other hand, it come down to our business operation and I do not feel it is the right place to share. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Ondřej Caletka <Ondrej.Caletka@cesnet.cz> wrote:
Hi,
Dne 10.6.2015 v 10:50 Lu Heng napsal(a):
My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy.
Sorry for off topic, but I would really appreciate some more details to support your statement. According to RIPEstat, none of your allocations have been seen in BGP in the year it has been allocated. Even though there was this policy that allocations should consider current needs plus 3 months only.
I cannot understand how come you got another allocations even though your previous were still not functional on the Internet. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just cannot think of any plausible explanation.
Best regards, Ondřej Caletka
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal. (And please DO NOT top-post, quoting a full mailing list digest underneath - *this* is something which might get the chair slightly angry) 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 Gert: I am very much surprise with your reply. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:50:30AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company).
Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, 37.222.0.0/15 is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.
Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal.
Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.
(And please DO NOT top-post, quoting a full mailing list digest underneath - *this* is something which might get the chair slightly angry)
I was replied on the daily summary mode of the mailing list, this was just normal to it, and now I turned it off.
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 This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:48:18PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal.
It is, however, not relevant to the 2015-01 discussion as that is solely about a loop-hole in the last /8 policy. Also it is used to impugn motives of participants and if that is ok now, I might have a thing or two to say as well... rgds, Sascha Luck
Dear All, On 10/6/15 10:50, Lu Heng wrote:
And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify).
Please let me try to clarify this. This is the process that was followed in the period between October 2007 and September 2012: Requests for PA allocations equal to or larger than a /15 would go through an escalation process. In this case, the documentation would be reviewed and evaluated by a second IP Resource Analyst (IPRA). Once both IPRAs were satisfied with the documentation provided, their findings were reviewed by the Registration Services (RS) Manager (to confirm that the evaluation was carried out according to Registration Services procedures) and the Policy Development Officer (to confirm that the request was in compliance with RIPE policies). Once the RS Manager and the Policy Development Officer were satisfied with the documentation provided, the request would be escalated to two Senior Managers, who would check that all processes were followed correctly. I hope this clarifies. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
participants (10)
-
Andrea Cima -
Ciprian Nica -
Danial Subhani -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Hannigan, Martin -
Lu Heng -
Ondřej Caletka -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Silvia Hagen