February 2016 - members-discuss

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Gert Doering 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

Hi, On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 06:58:01PM +0100, Jack wrote: > On 14/02/2016 18:52, Gert Doering wrote: > > Members get a /29 IPv6 with no questions asked. > > > > This is a *lot* of addresses. > Addresses that won't allow me to reach more than 80% of the "top 1000 > sites", according to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ > I am a huge IPv6 fan, but we need to be realistics: IPv6 only business > is not possible today But there is not so much the RIPE NCC can do about it. But if *you all* go out and call the sites that are important for your customers and explain that they will have poor performance (read: CGNAT) unless they enable IPv6, that will get things moving. Stop complaining that IPv6 isn't deployed - work to *make it*. (And this, gentlemen, is exactly why we're having this discussion - because too many folks are just complaining that IPv4 is running out (surprise!), that the IPv4 market is not fair (surprise!), but not spend that amount to get IPv6 rolled out further) BTW, nobody suggested doing "IPv6 only business" - do native IPv6 to your customers, put IPv4 on your big NAT boxes, and this exactly why we reserve a /22 IPv4 for people "late in the game": so your NAT boxes *can* reach those parts of the Internet that are stuck in the last century. 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

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Tomasz Śląski SKONET 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

W dniu 2016-02-11 o 11:56, Nigel Titley pisze: > [...] > > ACTION REQUIRED: > The Board asks the membership to provide their opinion on and discuss > the following points: > > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem > that must be prevented? It is obviously clear as the Sun is, that people open additional LIR accounts only to get another /22. The purposes are going mainly two ways: 1. the people need IPv4 for their own usage (hosters, cloud or vpn suppliers, ISP's - but they have more solutions) 2. for the speculative (ab)use. One of speculative abuses is following proceeding: - open the LIR, get /22, rent it for spammers (virgin addresses are expensive) after the IPs fall into the black lists, withdraw them from BGP and silently wait two years to sell the IP's - meanwhile, the addresses are purified from black lists and can be sold, and the LIR gets closed. The first of the ways I'm willing to accept - the prices on the "free market" (quotes purposeful) are much higher. The second is not fair to the other members of the RIPE NCC and should not take place - this practice is driving the black market and making speculative prices. In this case the 2-year transfer ban does not help anyway - with this type of activity it is not an obstacle. So I'm going to a conclusion, that either: a) it should not be prevented opening additional LIR, but limit "the openings" for one piece in 24(?) months. Additionally the resources received this way should be excluded from the transfer to another "foreign" LIR with significantly long time. These resources could be merged only with its own "primary" LIR after one year, but after that they can not be transferred out for at least 5 years. This should be enough to discourage speculation. or b) since the opening of the next LIR within one person or entity (organization) is creating a fiction - (see above) I postulate to go new way: one entity one LIR as principle. All additional LIRs opened by the same entity should be administratively merged info one account. Fees for this should be an annual cost of maintaining of each LIR. After that the resources should be locked for 5 years. After this cleanup let's introduce the fee for "new LIR resources" equal to the yearly cost of opening and maintenance of the new LIR and hold the lock the transfer for 5 years - this is in fact coming back to the concept of allocation a additionally /22 not often than 24 months for a fee equal to the annual cost of LIR. I think, that option b) will be more transparent. Otherwise, we risk a rash of new LIRs, who are not really "new entrants" but only a pretext to meet the needs of current users or drive the abusers. Best regards -- Tomasz Śląski

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Sander Steffann 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

Hi Nigel, > ACTION REQUIRED: > The Board asks the membership to provide their opinion on and discuss > the following points: > > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem > that must be prevented? Yes. The final /8 policy allows one /22 per LIR so that the RIPE NCC can at least give a small block of IPv4 addresses to each LIR (compared to no IPv4 addresses at all when the final /8 block runs out). This small block is needed so that those entities can at least run DNS, SMTP, NAT etc services on IPv4 for as long as necessary for the internet to migrate to IPv6. This is expected to take a long time, so RIPE NCC should be able to provide such blocks for a long time in the best interest of interoperability on the internet. A single member opening multiple LIRs to get multiple /22s goes against the spirit and purpose of this and if abused on a large scale will cause problems for future RIPE NCC members. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? This is more difficult. Some ideas: When an organisation is already an LIR don't allow them to open a new LIR. RIPE NCC membership already has a minimum length of one year. If I understand correctly LIRs that close in the first year still have to pay the full first year's membership fee. Maybe extend this to 2 or 3 years to make it less interesting to create disposable LIRs just to get some resources and then merge them into another LIR. Any way to prevent such disposable LIRs would be good. RIPE NCC is an association and those wanting to become members should be serious about it. Cheers, Sander

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Sebastian Wiesinger 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

To address Nigels questions for a change: * Nigel Titley <exec-board(a)ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem > that must be prevented? I see it that way. It is another attempt to game the run out fairly policy that is in place. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. If a member tries to circumvent this in bad faith I would have no problem with the RIPE NCC holding the member accountable for violating the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement and proceed with the actions as stated in ripe-640 (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources). If the current SSA doesn't mandate such action I think that we should add it. Are there attemps right now to fool the RIPE NCC into opening additional accounts? Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg Tel +49-911-9352-1335 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689

16 20

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Paul Civati 13 Feb '16

13 Feb '16

On 12 Feb 2016, at 22:54, Freethought Hostmaster wrote: > Just because someone is allocated globally unique address space, doesn't mean that it has to be announced into the DFZ. It is perfectly legitimate to use that space privately. How often does that happen? Do we need to support that when space is constrained? > Also, being allocated globally unique address space doesn't mean that you are multi-homed and thus also have an ASN. It is perfectly legitimate to have your own address space but be single-homed. Most LIR have their own ASN, but that is a valid point. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
by Hank Nussbacher 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

I think members opening additional LIR accounts goes against the spirit and history of RIPE. If Level3, Google, Akamai and others open multiple LIR accounts, I will then change my opinion. I also believe RIPE should not grant multiple LIR accounts additional requests for /22s. Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC

19 26

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Riccardo Gori 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

Dear All, dear Nigel, nI think using is ot abusing. There was a plenty of abusing even before september 2012. Wall of shame is there. No one is shamed though. It's pretty full of LIR that feel in peace with themselves creating a route obejct for a /22 and don't understand what is "making assignements". They don't have assignements at all. I have to notice though that multiple LIR accounts is not legally abusing any policy at the moment. Could be considered simply unfair. Fake contracts or fake needings declaration made before 2012 were/are illegal. Returing allocated and unused is mostly impossible but I would like to see what would happen to stockpiled IPs if memership fee were IP/monthly based. Cheaper transferts, cheaper leases, more LIRs doing their work, more internet. Said that here you are my opinion: 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem that must be prevented? Yes, should be prevented. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Stop allowing opening multiple LIR account for one legal entity. kind regards Riccardo Il 11/02/2016 11:56, Nigel Titley ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC Executive Board would like to ask the membership to discuss > the issue of RIPE NCC members opening additional LIR accounts. > > There were comments at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) in November > 2015 that members having the ability to open additional LIR accounts, > each of which can request a /22 of IPv4 address space, may run against > the spirit of the last /8 policy. In light of this, the Board decided to > temporarily suspend the ability of RIPE NCC members to open additional > LIR accounts. > > The RIPE NCC began to allocate IPv4 address space from the last /8 > policy on 14 September 2012. Since that time the RIPE NCC has allocated > more than 8,600 /22s, yet there remains 0.94 of a /8 still in the pool. > > ACTION REQUIRED: > The Board asks the membership to provide their opinion on and discuss > the following points: > > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem > that must be prevented? Yes, should be prevented. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Stop allowing opening multiple LIR account for one legal entity. > Statistics pertinent to this discussion are available in this article on > RIPE Labs: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/laura_cobley/ripe-ncc-members-and-multiple-li… > > The Board asks that members discuss this issue on the Members Discuss > mailing list<members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. > > The Board will monitor the discussion and will review it at the next > Executive Board Meeting on 31 March 2016. Depending on the outcome of > that meeting, the Board may propose a resolution for members to vote on > at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2016. > > Best regards, > > Nigel Titley > RIPE NCC Executive Board > -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile:https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo(a)wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Sascha Luck [ml] 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:56:28AM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >ACTION REQUIRED: The Board asks the membership to provide their >opinion on and discuss the following points: > >1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a >problem that must be prevented? Possibly, although it looks like not on a massive scale. Rather it looks like there are a small number of obvious abusers. >2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what >action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? I'm not in favour of blanket-banning additional LIRs. This would be regulating deeply into how members structure their business. I can think of a few legitimate reasons to have multiple LIR accounts - for instance if you're preparing a BU for spinning off, it may be convenient to create a second LIR and transfer the resources it needs to that. Of course this can also be done by creating a second legal entity and that is my second point: Such a ban would not be terribly efficient. Creating another legal entity or two is not very hard and, compared to the NCC membership cost, it's not very expensive either (depends on the jurisdiction, of course, it's easier in some than in others). If one intended to abuse this system, one could use straw men too, this is nothing new. A possible compromise solution could be to limit the additional accounts a member can open (to like 2 or 3) to catch legitimate use cases. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Aleksey Bulgakov 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

7 10