September 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

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

Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Nigel Titley 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Nick On 27/09/16 17:16, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Nigel Titley wrote: >> Well, most of the time you don't have to "convince the RIPE NCC board to >> implement it". The only time that the board would refuse to implement >> policy (and this has never happened to my knowledge) > > <ahem> ASN fees. That, I believe, was put to a membership vote. >> would be if such a >> policy were to impact the commercial viability of the NCC, and then we >> have a fiduciary duty to not allow it. Otherwise... go ahead. > > I'd suggest that a landgrab like this would attract law suits. I think you might be right, and I'd expect that it would be flagged up by legal at the Impact Analysis stage of the process. Nigel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Tim Armstrong 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money, the real question is if you think your time spent on this matter is worth more than the ~400 EUR / year you stand to save should you win the argument. Because I'm pretty sure winning this argument is worth way more to those with large IPv4 blocks that you want too slap a not so insignificant additional fee on, and for what, being an older company? If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22. Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before ripe even existed. Frankly, we should all be thanking legacy holders, because with out them, none of us would have jobs. -Tim On 26 Sep 2016 9:26 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" < ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 23:24, Simon Lockhart wrote: > STOP TRYING TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RECLAIM IPv4 ADDRESSES. IT WILL > ACHIEVE NOTHING. I don't find it as much about reclaiming as it is about making things the same for everybody: IPv4 = cost (even if it's only symbolic). Right now IPv4 = profit. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN ---- 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.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> wrote: > Sorry to say but I really don't think you are seeing the picture. > > I fail to see how dropping yearly fee's, increasing 'setup' fee's will > accomplish anything. Perhaps spend some time and do the math out and put an > actual outline with some numbers behind it and then match that upto the > required budget to operate RIPE. > Charging every member for the amount of resources they are using will bring back some fairness in an inherently unfair system. > > You specifically say this: > > "After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there > will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price > will be determined by availability." > > RIPE having an 'excess' of money, will simply mean that money is returned > to its members. The price is not determined by availability of resources, > it is determined primarily by the operating costs of RIPE its self. > Under my plan the RIPE NCC will use that excess money to buy back resources from RIPE NCC members who are willing to give back some of their resources. The amount of resources members are willing to give back will influence the price the RIPE NCC would be willing to pay from the excess funds. > > Specifically lets look at the Articles of Association that govern RIPE. > > Article 3 – The Association: Objective > > The objective of the Association is to perform activities for the benefit > of the Members, primarily activities that the Members need to organize as a > group. This object can be sub-divided into the following activities: > > - Registration Activities related to the role of the Association as > Regional Internet Registry; > - Co-ordination Activities, including the support of the stable > operation of the Internet; > - Administration Activities, including all regular reports and > administrative support as well as all other general administrative tasks > which cannot be attributed to a specific activity; > - New Activities, including all activities which are necessary to > react to the rapidly changing world of the Internet; and to do all that is > connected therewith or may be conducive thereto, all this in the widest > sense of the word. *Making profit is not an object of the Association.* > > > So if RIPE cannot make a profit, then it is impossible for it to set fee's > so high that would make any impact and thus limits the whole game to a > 21,000,000 million EUR bubble, which is TINY compared to some of the power > house IT companies budgets. > If the RIPE NCC wants to protect the remaining resources the setup fee needs to be increased either way, it is as simple as that. As I already said the excess amount will be used to buy back resources from members that are willing to give them back. Buying back resources instead of dispersing excess money will benefit future LIRs as they may still be able to get a small amount of IPv4 resources and make the entire system more efficient if you provide LIRs with unused resources an easy way to give back some resources and provide them with a reimbursement. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

9 12

Re: [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Andrew de la Haye 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

Dear Tim, These allocations were obtained through either the RIPE transfer policy or the mergers and acquisitions procedure that was in effect at the time of issuing. Both the RIPE policy and our own procedures have had some revisions over time. It’s still too early to say what effect recent changes have had, but we are monitoring this closely. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC > Dear Andrew, > > Am I correct in assuming that all of those with more than one /22 from > 185/8 did so via the various loopholes that have been closed over the > last > year? > > -Tim On 23 Sep 2016 8:43 a.m., "Andrew de la Haye" <andrewh at ripe.net> wrote: >> Dear Arash, >> >> We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that >> hold a >> /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of >> these, >> 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they >> hold >> 1,423 /22s. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Andrew de la Haye >> Chief Operations Officer >> RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
by Carlos Friacas 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

> Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start > spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" > page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External > Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to > engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages > in Roundtable Meetings for governments, Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers. Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-( In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-) > regulators and law enforcement > agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the > importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any > artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc. Regards, Carlos (pt.rccn)

7 12

Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Nigel Titley 17 Sep '16

17 Sep '16

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board asks that the membership consider the charging scheme model that the RIPE NCC currently uses. The current "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme was first used for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2013. This scheme was introduced following the formation of a Charging Scheme Task Force in 2011, a discussion of the issue on the Members Discuss mailing list, and the presentation of three types of charging schemes for the members to vote on at the September 2012 General Meeting (GM). The three types of charging scheme presented to the members in 2012 can be seen at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012/docume… Since the approval of the "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme, annual fees per LIR have reduced from EUR 1,800 per annum to 1,400 per annum. Since 2015, members can also vote to approve the redistribution to the members of any surplus accumulated by the RIPE NCC in a year. The Executive Board believes that the current charging scheme model still meets the three broad criteria that the Charging Scheme Task Force recommended for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme: - The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable for several years. - There should be stable fees per member. - A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees. However, the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities. This is evident from emails the board has received, from comments received in the RIPE NCC Survey 2016, and from discussions among the members on RIPE working group mailing lists. The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be. The Board has been contacted with a question regarding how a member could propose a topic to be voted on at a General Meeting. I would like to confirm that the board is always open to proposals regarding agenda items for the General Meeting. For the full background on how the agenda for a RIPE NCC General Meeting is set, please refer to articles 15.3 - 15.6 of the Articles of Association; as provided at the end of this email. Finally, I encourage all members to register to participate in the upcoming GM to ensure that the decisions reached reflect the overall wishes of the membership as far as possible. All details about the GM, including how to register, are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016 Best regards Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC Articles of Association https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-602 === 15.3 The agenda for the Annual Meeting shall include the following subjects: a. the adoption of the Financial Report; b. the discharge of the Executive Board with regard to its actions as they appear from the Annual Report; c. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board. 15.4 The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year: a. a discussion of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by the Executive Board; b. the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board; c. a discussion of the policy and the quality of services (to be) rendered by the Association. 15.5 If applicable, the agenda for the Annual Meeting or another General Meeting shall also include the following subjects: a. the extension of the period within which the Executive Board shall submit the Annual Report (as referred to in paragraph 14.2), which shall also constitute an extension of the period within which the Annual Meeting - at which the Annual Report is to be submitted - shall be held; b. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board; upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure; e. other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a group of) Members of the Association (pursuant to paragraph 15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting. 15.6 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.

25 37

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> wrote: > On 09/16/2016 05:57 AM, Prager-IT e.U. wrote: > > The plan I envision is quite simple, move from the current Flatrate > charging scheme to a system that charges members an amount for the > resources they are using. This will ensure that each and every RIPE NCC > member will pay their fair share. > > > 1. Charge per allocated IPv4 address with a linear system. > > price_per_ipv4 = required_budget / amount_of_addresses_in_use > your_yearly_membership_fee = amount_of_ipv4_you_use * price_per_ipv4 > > > Did you happen to read my reply to the thread. This is going to equate to > almost no resources left as a /22 will cost roughly 24 EUR per year. > I read everything said so far, to prevent this from happening we also need to increase the setup fee as I already outlined. > > This will also apply to Provider Independent(PI) assignemnts, anycasting > assignments and Legacy Internet Resources registered via a sponsoring Local > Internet Registry(LIR). > > > You're going to be hard pressed to charge Legacy resource holders, BUT, > even if you did, my above figure of a /22 costing 24EUR would probably be > cut down to 16 EUR or less > If the resources are sponsored via a sponsoring Local Internet Registry(LIR) I don't see why we should not be able to charge the Legacy resource holders. > > > IPv6 PI assignments and IPv6 IXP assigments will remain unchanged at 50,-- > Euros per year. > > > Moot point here since the number of IPV6 resources avail. > The goal is to provide a comprehensive plan for the membership to vote on. The way I see this needs to be in addressed as well in order for that to happen. > > > If we ever reach a point where IPv4 becomes obsolete revert back to a > Flatrate System as due to the nature of IPv6 a Flatrate system is a fair > choice. > > > 2. Increase the Setup Fee to an amount that reflects the current reality > of the transfer market, 6.000,-- Euros. > > > Read the 2015 Budget, they collected slightly over 5 Million EUR in setup > fee's, which got dispersed back to its members as a credit on next years > bill, increasing the setup fee will simply act to lower, even further, the > yearly cost. In 2015 Each LIR would have received 'roughly' a 415 EUR > credit on their bill... So we might as well just not charge for IPv4 upto a > /19 , and if you're going to up the setup fee's then we might as well make > that a free /18. > I am well aware of the numbers. Under my plan there most likely would never be any sum significant enough to disperse. > > > > > 3. Introduce an Inter-RIR Transfer Fee for resources that leave the RIPE > Region so people don't flee with their resources into a cheaper Region, > 3,-- Euros per IPv4 address. > > > If you do this, then it's a two way street. Not to mention that in the > growing global age, you can't tell me every IP being routed to the ripe > region is under RIPEs control. By adding additional hurdles folks will > simply ignore, and announce their space globally from the originating RIR > more so than they currently do now. > The goal of the change is to prevent people from fleeing with their resources allocated by the RIPE NCC from fleeing into cheaper regions after the new charging scheme has been approved. I am confused as to why you are going on about where resources are being announced from. > > > > 4. Buy Back IPv4 resources and return them to the free pool with any > excess money from members that are willing to give back resources. > > > With what money are these bought back and at what price? Only to re-assign > at a financial loss and then have to buy it back again? Grand scheme of > things, everybody here is ignoring the fact that, with basically 21,000,000 > EUR budget to disperse between all LIR's in RIPE you aren't going to change > the world. Aside from a lot of keyboard warriors pounding away with random > ideas that have no factual backings this thread accomplishes nothing. > After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price will be determined by availability. Again, I am well aware of the numbers it just seems that you are unable to see the picture yet. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Jetten Raymond <raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi> wrote: > Hi Stefan and All, > > > > How on earth are You, or who has resources to, do the measurement of > addresses “in use”? > > > Regarding the charging scheme I am referring to all resources that have either been allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC as I think any other measurement would be silly as you obviously have no way to tell whether resources are actually in use or not. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

1 0