- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

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

29 Jun '15

Greetings, Agree, such documents could not confirm organisation status. I sugest persons should use real person id, if legal company status is not valid. Or any other people can issue own Republic and create any document by thier own? Yuri@ntx Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Andrei Kushnireuski <ipas.master(a)gmail.com> Дата: 29.06.2015 20:58 (GMT+02:00) Кому: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Тема: Re: [members-discuss] Discussion on LIRs from Donetsk Area Hi. Does it mean the RIPE NCC staff approved the documents issued in Russia with registered address in Lugansk? If I understand correctly Lugansk is not occupied/annexed officially. It’s a part of Ukraine and any provided ’non-Ukrainian’ document is a useless scrap of paper. I don’t understand how is it possible to approve same documents? What is LIR registration based on? I think this registration is a part of big problem which is shown on this page: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings/RIPE > On 29 Jun 2015, at 15:53, Axel Pawlik <axel.pawlik(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ---- > 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. — Andrei Kushnireuski REGID: cz.alfatelecom nic-hdl: AK1065-RIPE ipas.master(a)gmail.com ---- 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

Re: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area?
by Alexandr Popov 28 Jun '15

28 Jun '15

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.

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area?
by ripe＠ntx.ru 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

+1 Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Sergey Myasoedov <kaa(a)net-art.cz> Дата: 27.06.2015 0:07 (GMT+02:00) Кому: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Тема: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area? Hi all, It may be looks like a Friday joke, but it is real: alloclist.txt: ru.dnr "Center of Internet services in DNR" 20150626 185.106.128.0/22 ALLOCATED PA 20150626 2a06:3dc0::/29 organisation: ORG-OISI2-RIPE org-name: "Center of Internet services in DNR" org-type: LIR address: 4, Lenina, Rubezhnoe, Luhansk reg., address: 93010 address: Lugansk address: RUSSIAN FEDERATION phone: +380986237344 e-mail: directory(a)dnr-online.net What the documents were provided for LIR registration? The certificate issued by Sealand Principality or what? Are there any kind of due diligence on the incoming documents? Human check? Not sure. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov ---- 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.

4 3

LIRs from Donetsk area?
by Sergey Myasoedov 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

Hi all, It may be looks like a Friday joke, but it is real: alloclist.txt: ru.dnr "Center of Internet services in DNR" 20150626 185.106.128.0/22 ALLOCATED PA 20150626 2a06:3dc0::/29 organisation: ORG-OISI2-RIPE org-name: "Center of Internet services in DNR" org-type: LIR address: 4, Lenina, Rubezhnoe, Luhansk reg., address: 93010 address: Lugansk address: RUSSIAN FEDERATION phone: +380986237344 e-mail: directory(a)dnr-online.net What the documents were provided for LIR registration? The certificate issued by Sealand Principality or what? Are there any kind of due diligence on the incoming documents? Human check? Not sure. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] LIRs from Donetsk area?
by Alexander Zubkov 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

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 >

3 2

[#VER-185-22767]: Re: NCC changing descr fields
by Служба п оддержки Flops.ru 05 Jun '15

05 Jun '15

3 2

Bots subscribed to the list
by Dominik Nowacki 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

Following bots are again subscribed to the list: registry(a)resilans.se<mailto:registry@resilans.se> support(a)flops.ru<mailto:support@flops.ru> Manager Hoster.KZ manager(a)hoster.kz<mailto:manager@hoster.kz> arcade solutions ag <support(a)arcade.ch> Following failed responses received: SYMPA <sympa(a)list2.orange.com> 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 contact rus-conf.ipregs-request(a)list2.orange.com<mailto:rus-conf.ipregs-request@list2.orange.com> -- Mail Delivery System do-not-reply(a)tickets.denit.net<mailto:do-not-reply@tickets.denit.net> I'm afraid to say that I was unable to deliver your email with the subject 'Re: [members-discuss] [#VER-185-22767]: Re: NCC changing descr fields'. 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. -- Can anyone from RIPE deal with this, please? I really hate getting spammed every time I chose to send a mail to this discussion list! With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse(a)clouvider.net<mailto:abuse@clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

3 2

NCC changing descr fields
by Paul Civati 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

It seems as though someone has decided to run a process of 'tidying up' in the RIPE db by fiddling with descr fields. I've been informed that: === During one of our data consistency checks, we saw that the resource holder information for these resources is not consistent: x.x.x.0-y.y.y.255 We will therefore be updating the resource holder information in the RIPE database objects to <company> and ORG-xxxx-RIPE on 2015-06-08." === This is somewhat mysterious, vague and puzzling Confusing because all the relevant handle and organisation records point to the correct objects for this block. Upon asking NCC what they are doing, I'm told that the descr field is incorrect and will be amended, actually to remove from it "London". What on earth is the point of this whole exercise? This has generated confusion on my part and a waste of support resource in NCC to deal with my query. We already have admin, tech and org fields that point to the identifying organisation for the object but now someone has decided that the descr field must have duplicated information. The help section in whois mentions nothing about what data is to be in descr field, nor do I recall any mandate that it must be set to the name of the organisation. I can't be the only one confused by this vague change and asking NCC what is going on and why. Summary: seems a totally pointless waste of time. I guess someone in NCC was bored because I can't see any other point of this. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme and ASNs
by Nick Hilliard 02 Apr '15

02 Apr '15

On 02/04/2015 15:09, Nigel Titley wrote: > There will therefore be two resolutions on charging at the GM: > > - Members will be asked to vote to approve or reject the Charging Scheme > 2016 that was published on 24 March: > https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2015/supporting-documents > > - Members will also be asked to vote to approve or reject a resolution > that would instantiate a EUR 50 charge per ASN Nigel, thanks for bringing this in as a voting item on the agenda. I believe this to be the best way to resolve the issue in the long term. There are ~27000 asns assigned by the RIPE NCC. Assuming a €50 annual charge, this will raise additional revenue of approx. €1.3m or around €120 per LIR. If the NCC membership votes in favour of a charge for ASNs, could you clarify whether this additional revenue will be: 1. used to drop the 2016 LIR charge from €1400 to around the €1300 mark, 2. retained as a surplus by the RIPE NCC, 3. returned to the membership by way of a future credit, as outlined in the last GM, or 4. something else. thanks, Nick

4 3

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

18 56

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] [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