Next steps for new LIRs
Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
This method, i think, is very near to discrimination if not backed up with something concrete. And for the RIPE NCC is a lot of work to detect witch new LIR has possible connections with all existing LIRS. Can you think of a method that could do this detection automaticaly ? On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:59 PM, David Huberman < David.Huberman@microsoft.com> wrote:
Hello,
I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG.
Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior.
Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.)
We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like:
"When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied."
Just throwing out ideas, David
David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
-- Catrangiu Marius Mobil: 0770481857 Mail: catrangiumarius@gmail.com
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Marius Catrangiu <catrangiumarius@gmail.com> wrote:
This method, i think, is very near to discrimination if not backed up with something concrete. And for the RIPE NCC is a lot of work to detect witch new LIR has possible connections with all existing LIRS. Can you think of a method that could do this detection automaticaly ?
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning. There are other options, some a bit far out there, but either way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion). We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement. Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4. This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Consider that iOS requirement Apple just announced and we it's a short term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning.
Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)
way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion).
Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.
We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement.
hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.
Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4.
Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible.
This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem.
Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents...
term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.
Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck
Greetings! Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4. If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder. Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others. There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution. What do community thinks? Yuri On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning.
Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)
way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion).
Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.
We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement.
hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.
Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4.
Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible.
This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem.
Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents...
term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.
Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process.
rgds, Sascha Luck
I agree with Yuri and want to warn you next. Why do we discuss about profit? We can also say that ISPs or Hosting Providers get IPs, then start their servers, networks and make profit. It's too bad. Let's close this hole. This proposal won't solve IPv4 exhaustion problem, due to the part of transfers from the last /8 is too small. 11.06.2015, 20:55, "Staff" <office@ip4market.ru>:
Greetings!
Everybody should remember that market begins when some luck of resources take place. Everybody want to force world to move to Ipv6 and forget about the problems. But until IPv4 exists and it's possible to use it/get it/buy it - and it's easier then to start Ipv6 - people will use IPv4.
If we will make harder to get IPv4 - the market will grow. But people who discuss here - they don't want this market. So logicaly they need to allow people use IPv4 and get them easy, but not harder.
Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others.
There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution.
What do community thinks?
Yuri
On 11.06.2015 20:35, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain system can handle it with some minor tuning.
Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)
way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place for this discussion).
Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.
We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed as a requirement.
hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.
Or we could request that new LIR show that they actual are doing business as in showing an approved accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing business before they can get IPv4.
Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible.
This will however actual exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, but, really, I don't care much about that problem.
Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents...
term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.
Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process.
rgds, Sascha Luck
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Staff <office@ip4market.ru> wrote:
Let's say give new LIR /21 (2048IP). It will be more then enough for several years. And I will tell why. Becouse it will drop the market price low and stop some speculations. And a lot of people will start selling resources that they don't need. And people who need IPs - they will be able to get enough from RIPE in standard way. There is no secrets here. Everything is clear. If more people work in this clear and fair way - the more people will offer own IPs for others.
There will be no luck of IPs. Just more redistribution.
What do community thinks?
You seem to lack an argument as to why 2048 addresses would make everything so much "better" than 1024 addresses. -- Jan
Hi all, fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer. A patent is useful when registered, detailed described and made public so that anyone can understand the benefit and re-do the same following patent istructions. Not in a drawer. It becomes a rich business when you can make it available to the market at a so resoanable (sometimes not) price a that people don't need to build up it themself. I hate the guys whos eyes are rolling with dollar symbol when they see a new business opportunity: speculators. I love people that when find a new business are entusiat to do business with it 'cause it solve a problem or makes life easier and better and they can make money with it. I don't think policy 2015-01 will save IPv4 and I don't think it is its purpose. I don't think this will make someone richer and someone else poorer, that's a market thing. I like it in its simpleness: just an alignement. Transferred IPs have to be holded 24 months... with 2015-01 *all* transferred IPs have to be holded 24months that's it. "Simple and clean" as considered by Gert ad RIPE69 listeing to proposal. In the past someone chated the system with fake address plans "I need more address space" Now someone cheats the system with fake "I need a new LIR" I can't see any difference in this and to me 2015-01 looks fair enough. am with Sebastian
I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s).
About "must deploy IPv6" I remeber you that IPv6 allocation requirement has been just removed from /22 IPv4 requests. Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" You don't even need an IPv6 address space to ask for IPv4 /22 Now remember that RIPE task is to distribute resources and think about it. from NRO stats https://www.nro.net/statistics 2012 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.02 ARIN 2.86 06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13 https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... https://www.arin.net/ task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think? Another point: Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) Please note the "Arguments Opposing the Proposal" It may reintroduce needs justification to the RIPE region [...] Finally I think the policies are going the right way. This won't stop speculators or fix everything but is trying to save the task of distributing resources in a bottom - up fair way (read as approved from the community) Standing on me I finally decided study better IPv6 and understand its market problem and I will try spend some work in that direction next months. Even if 17 years old he's still a teen and see a couple of market problems in it. From RIPE70 i decided to go this way and I'll get in touch with IETF and try to put some ideas in and see if something can help. kind regards Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net wirem.net
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Riccardo Gori <rgori@wirem.net> wrote:
Hi all,
fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer.
(...)
06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13
https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... https://www.arin.net/
task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think?
Without acknowledging your interpretation of "distributing resources", I would like to point out that when ARIN in a very short time no longer has any of these resources to distribute, they will, _forever_, fail to do their task, while RIPE still will carry out that task. So if we accepted your premise that that is _The Task_, RIPE will be performing the task better than ARIN, and not vice versa. -- Jan
Hi Jan, thanks for you reply Il 11/06/2015 23.56, Jan Ingvoldstad ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Riccardo Gori <rgori@wirem.net <mailto:rgori@wirem.net>> wrote:
Hi all,
fixed that I am against abuses. I think we have to keep in mind that RIPE task is resource distribution not holding them in a drawer.
(...)
06/2015 - AVAILABLE IPv4 /8s IN RIPE 1.09 ARIN 0.13 https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustio... https://www.arin.net/
task: distribute resources. ARIN has almost reached the task don't you think?
Was ironic to point out that there are many different point of views. Someone thinks that IPv6 will grow when IPv4 will be completly exhausted. I can't see any other reason to allow inter-RIR transfert (2014-05) to address the need of address space where is available or "stock-piled and unused" So the good guy who stockpiled is the old cheater that needed IPv4 /15 - /17 or the new cheater that needed many IPv4 /22 ? I see no differences. About the policy in RIPE region: Acceped march 2015: 2014-04, "Removing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8" Acceped april 2015: 2014-05 Proposal Accepted (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources) I see easiness in 2015-01 I see "alignement", you can find the same rule 24months in 2014-05
Without acknowledging your interpretation of "distributing resources", I would like to point out that when ARIN in a very short time no longer has any of these resources to distribute, they will, _forever_, fail to do their task, while RIPE still will carry out that task.
I think they should have an IPv6 /12 as other RIRs to distribute...
So if we accepted your premise that that is _The Task_, RIPE will be performing the task better than ARIN, and not vice versa. -- Jan
I think both are complying the task as well as the bottom-up approved policies. regards good night Riccardo -- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net wirem.net
* David Huberman <David.Huberman@microsoft.com> [2015-06-11 16:03]:
Hello,
I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG.
I agree but currently I don't have a good idea what else to do that will not interfer with normal LIR operation(s). One thing that came to my mind was to reinstate IPv4 requirements for that last /8? Perhaps require a specific use for the /22? I can already hear people shouting that this is not worth it. But the situation will probably get worse before it gets better. When ARIN runs out (hard) it might get worse even more so. It's impossible to see what the state of the system will be in 10 years but I'm still thinking we should preserve addresses for newcomers instead of letting people make money off of it (which they will probably NOT spend on IPv6 deployments). My hope is that the IPv4 market will get smaller in the same way that IPv6 grows and there are signs that IPv6 adoption is finally increasing in speed. So perhaps this problem will solve itself in the next few years.
Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.)
We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like:
"When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied."
The question is how would it be clear? I'm not so sure that this is something the NCC staff would be comfortable to decide. But perhaps we should ask the NCC if there are cases where they could be reasonably sure that a new LIR tries to game the system. (Like having ExampleCorp1-20 which are owned by the same person open 20 LIRs) Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Hello List, Here is my trial balloon attempting to offer a policy which prevents gaming. The concept is that it is simpler to attack the incentive than wade into the quagmire of defining legitimate business operations. I propose that new RIPE LIRs get their /22, but it only becomes fully vested as an asset after 5 years. Before that time, RIPE won't allow these 185/8 addresses to be transferred without RIPE being paid the balance of the 5 years' worth of membership fees. So the new LIR gets the /22 and pays the annual membership fee to RIPE. After 5 payments the addresses are fully transferable. If the new LIR goes out of business and returns the addresses, they don't owe anything further. If the new LIR wants to sell the addresses, he first has to pay the balance of 5 years membership dues to RIPE. So if he sells the addresses after one year, he has to pay four years of RIPE membership dues before they process the transfer. This lets the new LIR accumulate asset value in the addresses over time and gives him the option of selling or returning the addresses. I chose 5 years because right now 5 years of RIPE fees is roughly the cost for a /22. This will not be overly burdensome to RIPE staff, as analysis is only performed when and if a transfer of 185/8 addresses is submitted. This will not require judgement calls on the part of RIPE staff. If prices skyrocket, we can adjust the number of years. (Not commenting on prior policy but providing commentary on Mr.Huberman's post.) Thoughts? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Huberman Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs Hello, I think it is time to consider the next step for dealing with the problem of a few individuals opening up dozens of LIRs for the exclusive purpose of selling the /22s. Such activity is outright fraud, and something the NCC should tackle with the assistance of the APWG. Obvious point 1: It is very difficult to write policy text which stops such behavior, but does not impact legitimate market behavior. Obvious point 2: The NCC staff likely know when a request is a duplicate of previous requests. (Or at least, in many cases they do.) We had discussed in Amsterdam that perhaps it was best to empower the staff to stop the activity when it is clear to them that such activity is taking place. So how about a policy sentence that reads something like: "When RIPE NCC staff have reason to believe a LIR is being opened for the purposes of selling the IPv4 block allocation, such a request may be denied." Just throwing out ideas, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation
participants (10)
-
David Huberman -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Marius Catrangiu -
Mike Burns -
Petr Umelov -
Riccardo Gori -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Staff