March 2015 - members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

auto-responders and ticket robots
by Elvis Daniel Velea 02 Apr '15

02 Apr '15

Hi, rmplc-reject(a)rmplc.co.uk do-not-reply(a)tickets.denit.net sympa(a)list2.orange.com support(a)arcade.ch Please verify your subscriptions in the LIR Portal and stop sending me auto-replies. 1. rmplc-reject(a)rmplc.co.uk said: > Your email todiscuss(a)ripe.net has not been delivered. > > The POP3 email service for domain rmplc.co.uk has been ceased. You will need to contact the intended recipient via another means. that even looks like a bad error, my e-mail has reached the list! 2. do-not-reply(a)tickets.denit.net said: > I'm afraid to say that I was unable to deliver your email with the subject 'Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016'. > > None of the addresses which your message was addressed to matched one which I can accept e-mail for. Please retry your message or contact the system administrator for further information. Denit, of your subscribed employee no longer works there, maybe you should login to the LIR Portal and update the subscription e-mail address. 3. sympa(a)list2.orange.com said: > Your message for list 'rus-conf.ipregs' (attached below) was rejected. > You are not allowed to send this message for the following reason: > > you are not allowed to perform this action. > > For further information, please contactrus-conf.ipregs-request(a)list2.orange.com Bad filter? C'mon Orange.. you can do better. 4. support(a)arcade.ch said: >Elvis Daniel Velea, > > Sehr geehrter Kunde Das ist eine automatisch generierte Antwort, die den Eingang Ihrer Nachricht bestätigt. Wir werden Ihr Anliegen bearbeiten. Sollten Rückfragen unsererseits nötig sein, wird sich einer unserer Mitarbeiter so schnell wie > möglich mit Ihnen in Verbindung setzen. Wenn Sie uns auf diese Bestätigung antworten möchten, stellen Sie bitte sicher, dass die Ticket ID in der Betreffzeile für uns weiterhin sichtbar bleibt. So können wir Ihre Antwort richtig zuordnen. > > *Ticket ID: *MHJ-500-20375 > *Betreff:* Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 > *Abteilung: *arcade - service desk > *Typ: *Issue > *Status: *Offen > *Priorität:* Normal Ticketing systems subscribed to the mailing list? A new ticket with every response? I bet your colleagues handling these tickets are very happy, arcade solutions... cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis(a)V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Brandon Butterworth 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

> I'm not that sure anymore, the AS transfer policy is being implemented > and ASN16s will soon have a value once the free pool is depleted. People have learnt from v4 that you don't give up scarce things. One day people will pay for them, and as I said the other week if you want to garbage collect them you'd have to charge a high price to make it worth giving up (or pay as others have suggested) and people won't vote for that. A 50 Euro fee is way too low to do it and a pointless complication to the simplified charging scheme. I also doubt the unadvertised figure gives the whole picture, some will be used privately (no idea how many). I think trying to retrofit other hand back schemes now is futile (it was hard to hand back once, back when people wanted to hand back) brandon

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Brandon Butterworth 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

> I do not really believe that the purpose of this discussion has ever > been garbage collection. I thought it was, at least some people said it was, and nobody said the NCC needs to tax something to raise more money how about ASNs. > That makes it 27128 assigned ASNs. If each would have a (very low) 50E > fee, that would bring ~1.35M Eur additional budget to the RIPE NCC which > could be spent on outreach or could be used to lower member fees. Has the NCC said it needs more money (it could raise the existing fee if it did) If the total stays the same it's just reverting to an older charging scheme. I don't see the value in doing that. > I think that is the discussion we are having and I believe this has > always been the reasoning for the presentation at the GM and the noise > on the mailing list. Then I totally missed it. The NCC really needs loads more money? > I also think we should forget about garbage collection in ASN16 because > it will never happen. That was my point brandon

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Daniel Karrenberg 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

To put this discussion into perspective I suggest to have a look at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asn32/ and specifically the second table under "Current Status". I suggest to compare the ratio of the columns "Unadv" and "Adv" for our region with the total and with other regions. Daniel

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

At 22:47 28/03/2015 +0000, Jamie Stallwood wrote: >Here's a crazy thought. Instead of trying to raise charges the members >aren't keen to accept, why not offer a one-off account credit for returned >resources? It might be a nominal amount such as EUR 10, but even a small >carrot is better than a stick that you cannot use. Or how about requesting the return of unused ASNs and in exchange issue a 1M credit on RIPE ATLAS? -Hank

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Sander Steffann 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Hi Nigel, > There has been discussion on charging for AS Numbers. The board believes > that this discussion was not conclusive and there was not sufficient > consensus to change the model that was approved by the membership in 2012. > The board also believes that it should not influence addressing policy > through the charging scheme, although the model can be adjusted in the > future to take into account policies that have been agreed by the RIPE > community. I strongly disagree with the board here. There is already a policy that has consensus from the RIPE community that asks for this. Saying that the board will take into account future policies from the RIPE community but not one that already exists is just wrong. The RIPE NCC should implement *all* RIPE policies, not only those it chooses to implement. That way the board is actually influencing address policy through the charging scheme by adopting a charging scheme that is in conflict with RIPE address policy. The RIPE NCC and its members have deviated from RIPE policy in 2012, and this should be rectified as soon as possible. Cheers, Sander

17 47

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Jamie Stallwood 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Here's a crazy thought. Instead of trying to raise charges the members aren't keen to accept, why not offer a one-off account credit for returned resources? It might be a nominal amount such as EUR 10, but even a small carrot is better than a stick that you cannot use. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited M: 07795 840385 Sent from mobile secured by Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Titley [nigel(a)titley.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 10:37 PM GMT Standard Time To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 On 28/03/15 22:25, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:11:35AM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> NCC gives us an estimate of any costs directly associated with >> ASN billing, risk assessment if any, and we vote on whether or >> not we want the NCC to pursue another option in the future that >> is ASN billing related. Yes? > > There is nothing to stop the board from proposing a CS option > with an ASN charge >0 now. Do I understand you correctly in that this > vote should determine > whether the NCC will *always* have to present a CS option with > ASN charge >0 or just for the next CS proposal? I think it is unwise to bind the NCC/Board for all time (and I don't actually think this is possible anyway). Nigel ---- 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/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Sascha Luck [ml] 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:55:45PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 03:46:26PM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. >> They are listening to try and determine what's the way >> forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them >> like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same >> exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to >> do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the >> community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the >> board has never ignored.� > >This is exactly the problem: the change in 2012 was based solely >on what a (small, but loud) part of the *membership* wanted, and >it was changing policy-relevant parts of the AGM without >involving the AP *community* on this. Whether it was a small and/or loud part of the membership, it was voted on and received a sufficient majority. The idea that the AP community (which is, in theory, every Tom, Dick & Harry on the Internet) can somehow determine how much members are charged is, frankly, preposterous. The charges are a matter between the membership and the NCC board and any policy that relies on the charging scheme to work is fatally compromised. For fairness' sake, it has happened the other way around as well. In the RPKI disaster the membership has ruled into a matter of policy. That is just as wrong and we should take care to avoid these conflicts in the future (both membership and community). rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Sander Steffann 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hi, Yes, the idea was that we couldn't set any specific fee. But the intention was that there would be *some* fee... Cheers, Sander > Op 24 mrt. 2015 om 21:09 heeft Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl> het volgende geschreven: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >>> Could you clarify what policy you are referring to? >> >> The 2007-01 policy proposal that introduced it for all independent resources: IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs. > > From the https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01 > > "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out > the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC > Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed." > > Piotr > > -- > gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski > E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl

6 7

Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

> From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Agree. We're focusing too much on the money side here. I think the > objections to the charging scheme have nothing to do with money. It is > all about having some downside to keeping unused resources, and the > default way we got to think about that is to charge money for it. People will not agree to a large enough fee to make that work, and if the resource is scarce more so, people have seen the v4 market looming Take PI charging as an example, the money is trivial, the real cost was in the enforced paper trail that consumed way more resources to sort out. I don't know the stats (happy to be shown otherwise) on how many were recovered at the cost of messing how many legit owners around, I suspect very few Time wasted fiddling with legacy v4 better spent rolling out v6. > The address policy WG wants to make policies easy and simple, but > if they become too easy then abuse and negligence is feared so we > try to put a limit on that. The current trends is to do this by > making the NCC charge the holders It used to be you had to show a new AS advertised by two upstreams or you lost it, enough messing to discourage casual abuse brandon

1 0