- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

ripe objects as single text field
by Tapio Haapala 20 Jan '16

20 Jan '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I was just adding domain objects to DB. Suddenly that ui ask me to login again. After that I did not find way to add objects via single text fied. Can someone check that do they really remove one of most used feature at whole portal or is it just me who is blind or dumb? - -- F-Solutions Oy Tapio Haapala PL7, 90571 Oulu GSM 0400 998371 Skype burner- IRC Burner@ircnet -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWVJNzAAoJECSUPJ4T/HZPXM8H/RD3LrMX0MB/lSj4msDgYlSP 9R2uVjutSeOT9W741GHMsaHp4WCMKk7q+V1hKbwwu5Zf7hl8AGhRKTM4lktrRgdV r/vBRqZcL+pPfk+E39NucV9FjZSl8PbWyA/8dFRoHPTJkz/SC3HqJ2r0p59FoMe+ 5mmtZ0pYtEAuqGvnbKIsVT7q9qkfv852bELfzDY2jY9snKbd5HiAVOLkm/1PeOm+ vcOgaFM+Kxh8VnJoXe2znu0ilWdaS6QsEwnyT5ESfRpkEhWuQZnKMHYziTeUVhew 26Yl5qtgSksTCs1sZ/nP32cqBwh1Pyo/Tp0aUksSsZfcJLctH1Qg3Da3iN5qG/c= =7Xwk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

16 21

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Richard Hartmann 21 Nov '15

21 Nov '15

JFTR, I fully agree with the Board's decision. Very much related, this German article[1] claims that in November, 2000 new LIRs were created, bringing the total amount of LIRs to almost 13,000. Can someone reconfirm with official numbers, please? I am _very_ much concerned about what that means for any potential future GMs if those, let's call them creative, people and LIRs vote en bloc. Richard [1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/RIPE-Mitglieder-betteln-um-mehr-IPv4…

6 8

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Aleksey Bulgakov 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

6 9

[rt.cablenetcy.net #207225] Resolved: Re: Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Stylianos Anastasiou via RT 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

According to our records, your request has been resolved. If you have any further questions or concerns, please respond to this message.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Aleksey Bulgakov 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Christoph Neukirch 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

There's no reason I can imagine beside exploitation of the rules to have more than one LIR in one organization. So what could be a valid reason to postpone this decision for 2 weeks? Kind regards Christoph Neukirch From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bulgakov Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 2:45 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; Sascha Luck [ml] Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts I think it is reasonable to hold this decision for 2 weeks. Many companies planned their work and they cannot make any changes in their work so fast. There were not any notifications. -- Kind regards, Aleksey Bulgakov FastTelecom, CEO 7 926 6908729 14:58, 19 ноября 2015 г., "Sascha Luck [ml]" <ripe-md(a)c4inet.net<mailto:ripe-md@c4inet.net>>: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 01:19:41PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: Took 7 years: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2008-December/003… Now lets see how they solve the problem. That problem was solved in 2012 via a change in AoA. This is a different discussion. rgds, Sascha Luck ---- 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] [news] Board Resolution to Suspend Creation of Multiple LIR Accounts
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

At 12:39 19/11/2015 +0200, Nigel Titley wrote: Took 7 years: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2008-December/003… Now lets see how they solve the problem. -Hank >Dear colleagues, > >On 18 November 2015, the RIPE NCC Executive Board held a Board Meeting >in which it made a resolution to temporarily restrict the ability of >RIPE NCC members to acquire additional LIR accounts. The resolution also >temporarily suspends existing, ongoing or pending requests of RIPE NCC >members to open additional LIR accounts. > >The draft minutes of the 103rd Executive Board Meeting, in which the >resolution was drafted, are now available: >https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2015/minutes-103rd-ex… > >The board made the resolution following discussion at the RIPE NCC >General Meeting (GM), where a participant pointed out that the ability >for a member to create multiple LIR accounts might not be in accordance >with RIPE policy. The board resolution comes into immediate effect in >order to prevent members rapidly accruing LIR accounts in light of the >GM discussions. > >The resolution does not include the acquisition of additional LIR >accounts due to changes in two RIPE NCC members' business structures >(e.g. merger or acquisition between two organisations that are RIPE NCC >members). > >For the next GM, the board plans to add an agenda item on this topic for >deliberation and will put forward a formal resolution for the members to >vote on. > >The board may revisit its decision on this matter at any time in >accordance with the discussions, and no later than at the first >Executive Board Meeting after the next General Meeting. > >The board would like the membership to discuss this matter on the ><members-discuss(a)ripe.net> mailing list. You can also contact the board >directly at <exec-board(a)ripe.net>. > >Best regards, > >Nigel Titley >RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

2 1

IETF funding from RIPE
by Roger Jørgensen 19 Nov '15

19 Nov '15

Dear execboard, Yes please set up a longterm support plan so IETF can get a predictable funding source. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj(a)gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] scanned document (3127743)
by Henry Spanka 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Hey, Why are you sending a message with almost to content including a binary .exe file? Isn’t this against the RIPE NCC rules and could take some NCC members at risk in case it’s a virus or something. Definitely really suspiciously although I think, that it was an accident. Best regards Henry Spanka | myVirtualserver Development Team Von: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Info BusinessCom Gesendet: Friday, October 16, 2015 1:28 PM An: 'j.vaandrager(a)verkerk.com' <j.vaandrager(a)verkerk.com>; 'm.vanvuuren(a)verkerk.com' <m.vanvuuren(a)verkerk.com>; 'db-wg(a)ripe.net' <db-wg(a)ripe.net>; 'members-discuss(a)ripe.net' <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>; 'ncc-announce(a)ripe.net' <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> Betreff: [members-discuss] scanned document (3127743) Scanner model: HP Scanner software version: 61212-418703 Scanner file name: Covered unfair resample

4 3

scanned document (3127743)
by Info BusinessCom 16 Oct '15

16 Oct '15

Scanner model: HP Scanner software version: 61212-418703 Scanner file name: Covered unfair resample

1 0

Promote the use of IRC
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Hi all, Im wondering what do you guys think about the use of IRC instead of mailing list for some quick discussions, chit chat, etc... RIPE already have a unique IRC server, but I'm sure lot of us could host irc servers and irc services (as nickname registrarion, channels, etc.) The IRC could also be a good way to learn about how RIPE works in all of their WG, and I think is a good way to know better each other, have a really good BCOP communication. I'm relatively new to RIPE and maybe this question was answered before, but I didnt found anything searching for "IRC" or "Chat". For sure, I could host and irc server and/or irc services. I worked with them before. As a note, we could see the posibility to be authenticated on IRC based on our RIPE login. Also, channel logs (for logging history) can be publicly available as html. What do you think? I'm crazy? Regards, --Daniel PD: Very sorry for my english :)

8 8

Re: [members-discuss] Promote the use of IRC
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

Hi, The 11/08/2015 a las 13:38, Gunnar Guðvarðarson wrote: > Hey, > > Why not use a public service such as Freenode for such purpose? Ripe already have a single irc server, we can build the network from that. The 11/08/2015 a las 13:42, Varasdy Imre Csaba wrote: >i think this is good idea to have a place for chit-chat, quick >discussion, community based help-channel. >But i'm not sure, if IRC is the best way for this. >(for example, if your client was disconnected/turned off you cannot >track back the conversation) For that I said to have a "bot" to track all public channels (or the ones we want) and save the log to html to have publicly available, so you dont miss the conversations. Regards, --Daniel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Promote the use of IRC
by Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

Helli Michael, > Ripe does have a IRC server used for meetings and discussions, but it would be good to have a social channel there for all ripe partners and people working with ripe to connect and discuss in. > > Its on irc.ripe.net. Yes, i know, I try to follow meetings on the IRC. Its a single server with no services (nickname, channel registration, etc). If we can get a good IRC network (with few servers linked to a hub server (the ripe one, for example) and a good services (for not to be supplanted) I think it can work. > I agree though it would be good to have general IRC rooms for those of us wishing to chat instead of using a mailing list. Mailing list should be used for what they are meant, but there are a lot of discussions, chit chat, etc... that can be done in IRC and then embodied (<-- not sure if is the correct word) on the Mailing List as "official". > > Kind regards, Regards,

2 1

Discussion on LIRs from Donetsk Area
by Axel Pawlik 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, To clarify matters relating to the discussion on LIRs from the Donetsk area, I would like to remind you of the RIPE NCC Executive Board's resolution on continuity to service to all members. Please see the statement at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/executive-bo… The RIPE NCC needs to confirm that an entity exists. Dutch law does not restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by any national authority are considered to be sufficient proof. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. Given the situation, the RIPE NCC is striving to facilitate the provision of its services to network operators in this area and does not wish to deny services for political reasons. Our priority remains the provision of services to all our members. kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

7 7

Re: [members-discuss] Discussion on LIRs from Donetsk Area
by Samorukov,Alexey 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

I am aware of situation were RIPE NCC made registrations based on fake/spoofed documentation. This is the reason why i asked RIPE NCC representatives to check it because it "looks like a Friday joke” (c). I am aware that RIPE NCC members may not be aware about belonging of Donetsk and Lugansk cities or did very relaxed check of the submitted document. Thats it. > > After reading the entire discussion, it seems that it is political debates about territory on which this ORG object was registered. RIPE NCC does not register LIR without documents. Dot. >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Discussion on LIRs from Donetsk Area
by Samorukov,Alexey 30 Jun '15

30 Jun '15

> > To clarify matters relating to the discussion on LIRs from the Donetsk > area, I would like to remind you of the RIPE NCC Executive Board's > resolution on continuity to service to all members. Please see the > statement at: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/executive-bo… <https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/executive-bo…> > > The RIPE NCC needs to confirm that an entity exists. Dutch law does not > restrict the RIPE NCC from using any means it finds appropriate as proof > that a legal entity exists. Documents issued by any national authority > are considered to be sufficient proof. Thank you for reply, it would be great to have some clarifications, if possible. Does it mean that organization "Center of Internet services in DNR” is exists in Russia? I cant find any references to it in the registries. Also it is not clear what is “national authority” here. Admin-c and tech-c numbers are with Ukrainian prefix. Lugansk is Ukrainian city. DNR itself is a terroristic organization which is located in the Donetsk area (not Lugansk, btw). Could you please check and confirm that all documents were checked properly? Thank you.

6 11

Re: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area?
by ripe＠ntx.ru 29 Jun '15

29 Jun '15

The should be legal registration address in the correct country. Yuri@ntx Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Sergey Myasoedov <kaa(a)net-art.cz> Дата: 28.06.2015 2:33 (GMT+02:00) Кому: Alexandr Popov <alexp(a)lec.tel>, members-discuss(a)ripe.net Тема: Re: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area? The only thing is missing is company form. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 28 Jun 2015, at 01:05, Alexandr Popov <alexp(a)lec.tel> wrote: > > I think that it is a company registered under Russian law, and having a post address in Lugansk. As Ukrainian company may have a post address in Moscow. This does not conflict international law. Do not panic : ) > > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:33:49 +0200 > Andrei <ipas.master(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> there are 2 variants: >> 1) it's negligence from somebody from ripe ncc staff. >> 2) it's rebels/terrirists supports. And if I understand correctly this lir >> registration could get a legal action based on ukrainian / international >> laws. >> I think this issue must be escalated to ripe ncc manager staff first. >> On Jun 27, 2015 1:08 PM, "Maxim Usatov" <maxim.usatov(a)bcsatellite.net> >> wrote: >>> Alexandr, >>> >>> I am sure you realize what you have said below is nonsense. Eastern >>> Ukraine has not been annexed by Russia thus their mail system is not >>> authorized to carry any correspondence to Ukrainian cities. I will not >>> comment on your "ammo" thing. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Maxim Usatov, Founder and CTO * BusinessCom Networks >>> >>> On 6/27/15 10:27, Alexandr Popov wrote: >>> >>>> Post office does not work in Lugansk. However, the probability of >>>> receiving mail through the RUSSIAN FEDERATION much more than through >>>> UKRAINE. Since between Lugansk and RUSSIAN FEDERATION carried the movement >>>> of people and goods. And between Lugansk and Ukraine only ammo fly. >>>> >>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:42:15 +0200 >>>> Andrei <ipas.master(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, this assignment looks like a joke because ripe ncc doesn't >>>> provide >>>> address check. I'm sure the documents could be received by recepient >>>> in >>>> lugans, RUSSIAN FEDERATION. It means the company information is not >>>> valid >>>> and it's RIPE requirements violation from the RIPE NCC staff. >>>> >>>> I'm sure the investigation is requiread and the action against RIPE >>>> NCC >>>> staff is required. >>>> On Jun 27, 2015 1:18 AM, "Sergey Myasoedov" <kaa(a)net-art.cz> wrote: >>>> >>>> To clarify my point: I suppose that some required checks were not >>>> done by >>>> the NCC. At least the company form is missing in the database >>>> object. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Sergey Myasoedov >>>> >>>> >>>> > On 27 Jun 2015, at 00:59, Alexander Zubkov <green(a)msu.ru> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > My point was not about this. There was complaints that RIPE NCC >>>> performing bad when registering LIR's. I just wanted to say that >>>> given that >>>> example, there is no reasons to complain on RIPE NCC in given >>>> aspect. >>>> > >>>> > Considering your question. As I know, Lugansk is not a part of >>>> Russia. >>>> It is not me, who have written such address, I do not why they >>>> have done >>>> it. More to say I found it confusing that it is in Lugansk, but >>>> states that >>>> it servicing DNR. But I have a little information about what >>>> interrelations >>>> they have. Do not want to justify somebody, but it is entirely >>>> possible >>>> that this is only option for them to receive mail in Lugansk. >>>> > >>>> > On 06/27/2015 01:17 AM, Yakimus // VOKS support wrote: >>>> >> Hi, Alexander! >>>> >> Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:53:03 +0300: >>>> >> >>>> >> AZ> Isn't it postal address supplied by LIR almost in free >>>> form? >>>> >> AZ> This can be absolutely legal Russian company with good >>>> >> AZ> papers, which specified such postal address. >>>> >> >>>> >> Is there in real a village/town/city in RF, named Lugansk? >>>> >> >>>> >> address: 93010 >>>> >> address: Lugansk >>>> >> address: RUSSIAN FEDERATION >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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. >>> > > > ---- > 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. > ---- 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.

1 0