October 2016 - members-discuss

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Muntasir.Ali＠newham.gov.uk 26 Apr '17

26 Apr '17

Hi, As a non-profit LIR with a /16 Legacy IPv4 address space, and only Legacy space within IPv4, we would be opposed to any charging models based on size of IP allocations, especially those which include Legacy space within consideration of calculating what is charged. This is considering that many (not all) of the proposed "solutions" may make it more expensive or infeasible for us to retain membership were they implemented as described. Our main motivation of joining up was for IPv6 address space allocation, so that we can move to enabling IPv6 services on our networks. If it turns out more expensive to retain membership simply because of our Legacy address space, were RIPE to adopt a model based on size of IP address space, then for us, it would make more sense to set up a new business and register that as a brand new LIR without any IPv4 space, and just ask for an IPv6 allocation. If the charging model is based purely on IPv4 space, then in theory if we have no IPv4 registered, we don't get charged anything? We don't need the "free" /22 currently offered to new members. Even though we are currently eligible for the extra /22 on top of our Legacy space, we have chosen not to take up the offer, since we know the /22 would be better served allocated to another RIPE member; hording it makes no sense for us nor for the wider community. Not that I expect it to work that way anyway (creating an LIR with IPv6 allocation and no IPv4 allocation), that's simply not maintainable for RIPE if quite a large number of organisations were to do this, and it may push up costs for the members which do have IPv4 allocations. Which highlights another point - I've noticed there's been no mention or consideration of size of IPv6 allocations when it comes to charging models based on IP allocation. I presume the general membership don't consider this an issue at present due to the vast size of IPv6 address space? What happens for LIRs with only IPv6 space? Why aren't we considering the usage of other resources as well, such as AS number allocations? Also regarding the state of Legacy resources, I raised a ticket to enquire what would happen were we to stop membership. Quoting from the response: [quote] ...so the legacy space is not part of the Internet Registry system. You didn't get it from the RIPE NCC so if you close your LIR you keep it. The IPv6 allocation [...] you did get from the RIPE NCC so if you close your LIR it comes back to us. Your LIR also quailifies [sic] for a /22 of IPv4 and if you closed your LIR after receiving that it would also be returned to us. [/quote] This would imply that actually, RIPE cannot reasonably charge based on size of any Legacy space, because the space doesn't belong to RIPE, and we keep it if we left. By extension, if any charging model based on size of IPv4 allocation includes the Legacy space allocation, then it will make sense for any LIR with legacy space to create a second LIR, separate their legacy and non-legacy space by transferring one to the second LIR, then dropping membership for the LIR with the Legacy space. The remaining LIR with non-legacy space would then be charged less than if it retained all the space. Now this isn't really fair for the LIRs without Legacy space, but from a cost perspective, this would be the logical thing to do for LIRs with Legacy space, especially if they have a large amount of it. So for any proposal to charge based on IPv4 allocation which includes Legacy space, which for above reasons I don't think RIPE can do anyway, I would posture this would not give a fair or desired outcome in the long run, especially for the LIRs without Legacy space. But then, any proposals to charge based on IPv4 allocation which excludes Legacy space, are also arguably not fair either, because those with Legacy space would effectively get a disproportionately cheaper service for what they use, if we decide service charge is to be based on IPv4 usage. So I do not think _any_ proposal to charge based on IPv4 space can give a fair, reasonable, or desired outcome. > > > > Anyway, I believe that implementing a charge that is based on the > > size of the IPv4 resource allocation is fair and it would line up > > with RIPE NCC's goal of safeguarding the resources. Whether > > implementing a cost like the proposed €250/year per /24 or a fee > > based on categories such as the other RIRs are imposing, the model needs to be changed. > > I disagree. I'd rather the costs were distributed based on the costs of providing service to LIRs, which the current charging scheme seems to do quite well, subject to closing loopholes when someone tries to game the system. > > I agree with this. The cost model should be based on the cost of providing the actual service, not the size of address space any organisation may have. Because RIPE need to recover the costs of running their service, it would be fairer and more sensible to charge based on how much service is used, not on resource allocated. Of course this brings questions on what defines "service". Number of tickets raised? Number of objects of the various types in the database for that particular LIR? Frequency of database changes? Usage of tools like RIPE Atlas, other APIs? etc. This is assuming we don't keep the current flat rate scheme or use something similar, which as previously mentioned, appears to work quite well subject to closing loopholes being used for abuse. Regards, Muntasir Ali, Specialist ICT Analyst, ICT oneSource Newham Dockside , 1000 Dockside Road , London E16 2QU DDI: 020 3373 7337, Int: 37337 oneSource - working on behalf of Havering and Newham councils www.onesource.co.uk Follow us on Twitter: @oneSourceUK Please consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham. However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it. You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk. We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network. The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

36 84

Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by Nick Hilliard 10 Nov '16

10 Nov '16

I've received several copies of the template email below about several different address ranges, all sent to email addresses culled from the RIPE Database. They all appear to originate from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Ltd. In order to be listed as an IP broker on the RIPE web site, it is necessary to sign the "Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement". This includes the following text: > The Broker shall adhere to the relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC > procedural documents, [...] The RIPE Database T&Cs include the following text: > Users may not use the RIPE Database or the data contained therein for > advertising, direct marketing, marketing research or similar purposes. Could the RIPE NCC kindly confirm whether or not spamming contact email address gleaned from the RIPE DB is a violation of the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement? If this isn't a violation, could the Board consider specifically adding an anti-spamming term into the IP Broker T&Cs listing? Nick Ciprian Nica wrote: > Dear Sirs, > > My name is Ciprian Nica and I'm the CEO of IP Broker Ltd, one of the > first IPv4 Address brokers in the RIPE region. I am contacting you > regarding the block of 256 IPv4 addresses (from x.x.x.0 to > 'y.y.y.255') which according to our data seems to be not in use as > they are not announced in the global BGP table. > > If you no longer need these IP addresses then it is a good moment to > sell them. The global IPv6 deployment rate is around 15% while in USA > is around 30% so in a couple of years IPv4 might become worthless > again. > > Of course that besides the subnet mentioned above there might be some > other blocks that you might not need. Please let us know all the > blocks of IP addresses that you no longer need and we will do our > best to sell them in a fast and secure way. > > Thank you, > Ciprian Nica > CEO > IP Broker Limited > t: +44 20 339 339 91 >

26 36

Re: [members-discuss] Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by Marek Isalski 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

> On 11 Oct 2016, at 08:18, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > Attacking my company for not filing some document on a public list is affecting my image and I am considering suing you if you don't retract your words. Nica, I cannot remove something published by Companies House in the Gazette: it is a public record required by UK law, specifically so that potential customers and suppliers can perform due diligence checks upon companies. Please clarify which of my words you want me to retract? Marek Isalski Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [#1171078] Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by support＠psychz.net 10 Oct '16

10 Oct '16

Hello, Can you excluded psychz.net support off this conversation? I don't see how we should be concerned about these emails unless it pertains to a technical problem pending resolution. -- Luis Gomez Technical support

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Hank Nussbacher 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

I guess there is no limit to how far people will go to game the system. Since there are about 14,000 LIRs out there that have very little clue about RIPE history and can get the wrong impression about legacy IP address holders, I'd like to speak as a Legacy LIR and one who has paid RIPE membership fees since 1995 (actually the first paying member - see attached): Looking back at the minutes of the meetings from 1994+1995: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1994/minutes-from-rip… https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1995 one can see organizations like Aconet (Austria), Cesnet (Czech Republic), DFN (Germany), Heanet (Ireland), and over 20 more NRENs - all of which have primarily legacy IP address space, were the founders of RIPE and have paid and will continue to pay RIPE membership fees. Having Legacy IP address space does not mean you are automatically a scum-bag. Quite the opposite and Nigel's email just made be pissed off. Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it. Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC > Dear Colleagues, > > The Executive Board has instructed the RIPE NCC to temporarily restrict > the ability of Legacy Internet Resource Holders to become RIPE NCC > members or open LIR accounts in their capacity as Legacy Internet > Resource Holders. This decision was taken at last week's Executive Board > meeting in Amsterdam. > > Since the policy “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resources” was > implemented in 2014, the RIPE NCC has waived the EUR 2,000 sign-up fee > for Legacy Internet Resource Holders who choose to enter into a > contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. It now seems that some > entities have started obtaining very small blocks of legacy IPv4 > resources (in some cases as little as a /29) and using this to open an > LIR account and obtain an IPv4 /22 allocation without having to pay the > sign-up fee. > > The board feels that this is against the spirit in which this fee was > waived and gives an unfair advantage to these entities. Removing this > cost barrier could also result in faster depletion of the IPv4 pool that > the RIPE community has reserved for newcomers. We will therefore be > adding this to the agenda of the upcoming General Meeting (GM) that will > take place on 26 October. We will also put forward a resolution for the > membership to vote on to address this problem. As the board anticipates > an increase in these kinds of requests ahead of the GM, we felt it was > necessary to apply this temporary restriction until a proper solution > can be applied. > > It is important to note that despite this temporary restriction, Legacy > Internet Resource Holders may continue to register their resources: > - By becoming a RIPE NCC member (without using their capacity as Legacy > Internet Resource Holders to receive the sign-up fee waiver) > - Under an existing LIR account > - Through a sponsoring LIR > - By entering into a direct agreement with the RIPE NCC

16 35