December 2013 - members-discuss

Re: [members-discuss] Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working fromripe DNS server
by None 09 May '14

09 May '14

36 44

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Vlad Dascalu 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

>> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner(a)nodemax.com>wrote: > > > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered > by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in > the telecoms market. > > > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > [image: logo] > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work > .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s .. > > > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been > issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were > issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 > blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... > 1K would have been fine. > > > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has > all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say > are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or > not. > > > > Now we have given back *promptly* 4 million phone numbers some big mobile > companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those > numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them > will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or > has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to > keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will > ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given > back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a > demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less > than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so > mis -managed). > > > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such > will make you smile .. > > > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > > > Regards > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [ > mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net>] > *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive > change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look > to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying > reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 > requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for > others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't > think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few > more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might > have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would > appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses > sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who > had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and > doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop > to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying > that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't > have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state > because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal > here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, > so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your > understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no > problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release > them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. >

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Paolo Di Francesco 18 Dec '13

18 Dec '13

Hi Tony, 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing. The rest is just noise. Paolo > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not > bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does > in the telecoms market. > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t > work .... all it will do is create another market for those with > extra IP’s ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had > been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some > ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, > but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not > Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but > that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they > say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer > or not. > > Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big > mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some > of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the > service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using > them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run > out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and > can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the > big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be > given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce > resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers > where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just > allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of > such will make you smile ... > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the > Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to > create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must > look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz > <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, > denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 > letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it > obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand > IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small > IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, > releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact > for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few > more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP > addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy > IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 > directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them > all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may > even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you > have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't > want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or > in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own > those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, > I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same > time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for > your understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net > <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or > elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so > all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of > effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be > no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to > release them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it

6 7

IPV4 market
by Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer

4 3

Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by William Weber 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

As RIPE seems to have decided that i can be ignored and no one needs to reply to me i make this public now as threatened to them before - See Dear Andrew, i don't care what you say - if you don't reply me with anything useful then i take steps to get others involved. This is not the first time i reported a LIR for evaluation and was ignored. I waited over a month for any reply and sent multiple follow up mails, no replies and the ticket is "open" in the Lirportal, now the last reply i got was again useless and without any interest (No Andrew, i cannot use the LIR<>LIR report form to report LIR<>RIPE, i can't even enter that there.) Theres some more fun to be had, here's a text i prepared before i sent my mail to RIPE after some investigations (which merely took 10 minutes time and a few calls to some associates) - Now, isn't that proof enough for an evaluation? I think so and the other LIRs i represent do as well, but make your own picture. -- Today we follow an interesting 'ISP' which is based on a sole-trader in the Netherlands which managed to have RIPE/Afrinic/ARIN assign him IPv4 space totaling to a /8: His name is Heng Lu, also known as "OutsideHeaven" - http://outsideheaven.com Seemingly based in the Netherlands Lu is of Chinese origin and does (as far as informations go) not live in Europe at all. First being a customer of OVH and having his IP space announced on OVHs AS now most space seems to be announced by Los Angeles based ISP Multacom (AS35916). A short view on the website shows that no real services are provided yet massive amounts of IPs are registered to him personally, him as sole trader or his companies at all RIRs: 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs This is an AFRINIC net assigned to a company in the Seychelles ("Abacus (Seychelles) Limited"), the Person handle and mail shows the connection to OutsideHeaven. The network itself contains smaller assignments, all with the descr of "CloudInnovation infrastructure" and various countries set (AD, SD, YT….), most IPs are not announced at all and seem unused. 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs A RIPE network from 2012.09 announced by Multacom in LAX outside of the RIPE region. Seems unused. 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs RIPE network dating to 2012.07 (Just 3 months after the /15 was allocated, exactly the timeframe RIPE required a space to be used in to get a new one…), announced on OVH. 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs Yet another RIPE network from 2012.04 (who can spell 'bribe'?) announced by OVH on France, unused as well. 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs Allocated 2010.11 - Announced by a datacenter in the Netherlands, unused. 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs 2011.04 - Announced in LAX/Multacom. List (not complete, there is more smaller assignments on him): 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2010.11 178.236.224.0/20 - RIPE - 4096 IPs - 2010.06 -- William Weber | RIPE Person: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh (among others) william(a)edisglobal.com | william(a)william.si | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Maribor, Slovenia Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: William Weber <william(a)edis.at> > Betreff: Aw: NCC#2013100726 Complaint against a LIR > Datum: 09. Oktober 2013 13:18:36 MESZ > An: Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net> > > Dear Andrew, > > And who verified that these 2 analysts were not bribed... i know guys buying /12s by bribing AFRINIC officials (in fact, the same LIR as this mail is about "bought" space there also, 154.80.0.0/12) and this isn't unheard in LACNIC/APNIC either, so what tells me RIPE did/does not do the same... > > Sorry, but this is not really any better now: > > This guy "accidentally" sits in Amsterdam as well, not even far from you, being Chinese(!) with barely 3000EUR income reports filled 2012/2013 in the Netherlands for his BVs and his sole trader status and has one of the largest total > allocations in the entire RIPE region? > > How can he announce 2(!) *ENTIRE* /15 from an ARIN ASN in Los Angeles while i and others got contacted by RIPE about a measly /24 on an ARIN ASN? > > Why do his assignments make no sense, look auto generated and never contain any end-user data? Why was this not verified at add-alloc? > > How does he use over a million IPs on a 100Mbit uplink to his upstream provider? > > This all is still very fishy and not really impressive... > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, > William Weber > > -- > EDIS GmbH > NOC > Hauptplatz 3/3 > 8010 Graz > Austria > Umsatzsteuer-ID: ATU 64124511 > Firmenbuch: FN 308697t > > phone: +43 316 827 500 > fax: +43 316 827 500 777 > http://www.edis.at > > This message was sent by EDIS GmbH, it is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL and is solely for the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at support(a)edis.at and delete it from your computer. > > > Am 08.10.2013 um 11:55 schrieb Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net>: > >> Dear William, >> >> We take your allegations very seriously. As such, your ticket has been escalated to me by Andrea Cima, manager of the RIPE NCC's Registration Services Department. >> >> Before the RIPE NCC reached the last /8 of IPv4 address space, we implemented a temporarily enhanced allocation procedure to ensure a fair, neutral and well-documented IPv4 run-out. >> >> This procedure was communicated to our membership and community at meetings, via the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List, and via our website. You can find the complete description at: >> https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/204-last_slash_8_NCC_Services.pdf >> >> Measures were taken to ensure our members' needs were filled on a first-come, first-served basis, and to ensure that we followed due diligence. Each request was evaluated by two IP Resource Analysts. Furthermore, all large requests (/15 PA or /18 PI or more) were rigorously evaluated by Registration Services Management, checked for policy compliance by our Policy Development Officer, and were finally approved by two RIPE NCC Senior Managers. >> >> The IPv4 requests you have listed followed this process completely and, based on the information we received, were entirely justified. >> >> If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Andrew de la Haye >> Chief Operations Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> Singel 258 >> 1016 AB Amsterdam >> the Netherlands >> andrew(a)ripe.net >> tel: +31 20 535 4444 >> fax: +31 20 535 4445 > Am 07.10.2013 um 14:29 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>: > > Dear William, > > As requested I have escalated your complaint to the RIPE NCC Senior > Management. > > They will come back to you ASAP. > > Best regards, > Andrea Cima > > RIPE NCC > > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:11:37 +0200, William Weber wrote: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> So if there is no proof for a bribe you do as it does not exist at all? >> Why did no one tell me this before, i would have come with a suitcase of cash to AMS... Seriously, this statement is worse than what 3rd world dictators state all the time about bribery... >> >> Considering that RIPE members have no access to other RIPE members add-alloc (or any other) forms it is also entirely *impossible* to prove lies in them (hey, how should i do that if i can't read them at all?) - Thus it clearly is your obligation to verify this claims OR provide the accuser with access to a system to verify it himself. >> >> It is by itself alone VERY suspicious that the single largest allocation for weeks is allocated 8 days before the last /8 is reached to an unknown sole trader without any business.... yes, i think i have enough 'proof' to get this verified by the RIPE, please escalate it to whoever you think is appropriate or i will do so myself today at 00:00 via the RIPE mailing list to ALL members. >> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, >> William Weber >> >> -- >> EDIS GmbH >> NOC >> >> >> Am 04.10.2013 um 15:52 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>: >> >>> >>> Dear William, >>> >>> All allocations are issued based on RIPE policy and documentation that >>> demonstrates the need for those resources. The information provided by >>> members is confidential and cannot be shared with other members. >>> >>> If you have proof that a member has provided false information to the >>> RIPE NCC, please provide us this proof. Based on this we can then >>> start evaluating the claims and take appropriate actions. The same >>> counts for your accusation of a RIPE NCC emloyee having received a >>> bribe, which is a very serious accusation, that we do not take >>> lightly. >>> >>> Finally it seems there is a misunderstanding about the date on which >>> the RIPE NCC has reached its last /8 policy. The correct date is 14 >>> September 2012. Please find the official announcement at: >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-September/00182… >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Andrea Cima >>> Registration Services Manager >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:49:32 +0200, William Weber wrote: >>>> x-ncc-regid: at.edisgmbh (and at.<removed>, li.<removed>, li.<removed>, plus representing <removed> and <removed>) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, i have to complain again to evaluate someone.... >>>> >>>> LIR is nl.outsideheaven >>>> >>>> I am 100% sure that the allocation of his netblocks have either used false data in the add-alloc forms, plain lies or bribes (which i see as the most likely) - His company has no trading activity in any country (verified with Dutch and Chinese tax authorities) and nothing that would justify the usage of this amounts of IPv4 space. >>>> His usage of some of them also violates RIPE rules, most are for example not even announced inside the RIPE region but originate from AS35916 (Multacom in Los Angeles, USA) solely. >>>> The assignments while RIPE already reached the last /8 are very questionable as well and overturning a members and board decision. >>>> >>>> 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> >>>> 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /15 5 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /16 3 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /15 1 month AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> >>>> 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, >>>> William Weber >>>> >>>> -- >>>> EDIS GmbH >>>> NOC >>>> >>>> >>

35 67

Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by Joao Silveira 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. > > Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". > > With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... > > So charging won't necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > FROM: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] ON BEHALF OF Oliver Bryssau > SENT: 16 December 2013 09:59 > TO: RIPE > CC: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > SUBJECT: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [2] [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [3]] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net [4] > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere >> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you >> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and >> money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) > > A. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [6] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [7] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Links: ------ [1] mailto:ripe@centronet.cz [2] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [3] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [4] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [5] mailto:gert@space.net [6] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [7] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] IPV4 market
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Define "using them"? Also as far as I know there's no way for any of the RIRs to randomly take back IP space .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] [sajjad.n(a)mtnirancell.ir] Sent: 16 December 2013 11:10 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer

3 2