- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Gert Doering 26 Jan '15

26 Jan '15

Hi, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > One way I believe this could be accomplished is that if you already > pay the NCC membership fee or a PI fee, then you automatically get a > reasonable quota of gratis ASNs. (Not automatic assignment of those > ASNs, but that you won't get a separate charge until you have requested > enough ASNs to exceed your quota.) This would work for me. Agreeing with Tore that this is not supposed to bring in additional revenue, and also not supposed to punish/hurt LIRs that make good use of their ASNs - but to be an incentive to return (or trade away) unused ASNs to make them used again, and to prevent useless hoarding which would burn NCC resources. Gert Doering -- RIPE member, and interested in good resource management -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 7

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Nigel Titley 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board has closely followed the ASN discussion on the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The issue of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme has been raised, so I'd like to give you an idea of the Board's thinking on this. We hope this will inform the discussion and also give sufficient time for members to give their feedback, which we will take into account when making a Charging Scheme 2016 proposal to present to the General Meeting (GM) in May this year. The issue of reintroducing a charge for ASNs was raised at the last GM in November 2014. You can follow the details of that discussion in the GM minutes: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/minutes-ripe-ncc-gen… This discussion, interesting though it was, did not result in a conclusive outcome on how the membership would like the Board to proceed with regard to ASNs. It also raised the issue of charging for PI address space. Another issue raised at the previous GM during the discussion on providing RIPE NCC services for Legacy Internet resource holders was that members can vote only to approve or reject the Charging Scheme as a whole and they cannot vote on individual aspects of the Charging Scheme. In trying to address the Charging Scheme-related issues raised, the Board would like to make two statements: Firstly, the Board would like to retain the current "one LIR, one fee" Charging Scheme model that was approved by the membership and which provides fairness, predictability and simplicity for RIPE NCC members. Secondly, the Board strongly believes that the Charging Scheme should be aligned with RIPE Policy. For this reason, there is a separate charge for PI resources that ensures alignment with ripe-452, "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region (2007-01)". With this in mind, the Board would like to offer two different proposals for the Charging Scheme 2016: 1. The Board can propose a Charging Scheme in advance of the May GM and have the membership discuss the proposal. The Board would take the discussion into account before proposing a final Charging Scheme to be voted on by the membership in May. or 2. The Board could take a two-step approach to the Charging Scheme. In May, members would vote on individual issues such as charging for ASNs. The result of the voting would then be used to create a Charging Scheme that would be voted on in the usual way by members at the November GM. The RIPE NCC Executive Board is appointed to represent the interests of the membership. For this reason, we encourage you to give us your feedback on these proposals so that the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 can come as close as possible to reflecting the wishes of the membership. You can discuss the proposal and related Charging Scheme issues on the Members Discuss mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>) or you can contact the Board directly at exec-board(a)ripe.net <mailto:exec-board@ripe.net>. The next Executive Board meeting takes place on 19 March, so we would appreciate your feedback before that date. I will also copy this mail to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list to ensure all interested parties are aware of the Board's thinking. Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Paul Civati 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

(cc members-discuss) Mihnea-Costin Grigore <mgrigore(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as > of 5 February 2015. We believe this change will provide a more secure, > efficient website for our users. > > The www.ripe.net website has been available over HTTPS for some time > already, and we are now making it HTTPS-only for two reasons: to improve > the website's security, and because we plan to integrate RIPE NCC Access > (our single sign-on system) with www.ripe.net as part of our larger > website redesign project, which requires us to use HTTPS throughout the > site. Some observations spring to mind. 1. www.ripe.net is (as far as I can see - and I could be wrong - please correct me) primarily an information site, that is it provides publically available information to everyone/anyone. Therefore it does not largely transmit anything that needs to be secure and encrypted over SSL. 2. There have been far more security holes in https/TLS/SSL of recent than plain HTTP as far as I can tell. Therefore I would say that https is less secure unless you have sensitive information to transport. If my assertion (1) is correct then it would not seem beneficial to SSL proect www.ripe.net - indeed it may make it less secure. 3. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that SSO is a good plan, in this case separation of the two different entities (information ie. www.ripe.net and admin ie. LIR portal) seems like a good idea. Of course (3) may break the desire for SSO. Or this may not really matter and no-one may really care. :) Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

7 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Jan '15

22 Jan '15

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Mihnea-Costin Grigore wrote: >We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as I like the idea, everyone should do it. Would the NCC consider publishing a report on any unreachability issues encountered, once it's been https-only for a bit? This would be useful info for anyone else considering this move. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Hi When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. -- Shahin Gharghi

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

If they won't check, why do they ask? On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arjan van der Oest < arjan.vanderoest(a)voiceworks.com> wrote: > Just insert two peers that are available in Iran as upstream. They will > not actually check with those peers. > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Arjan van der Oest > Lead Mobile Engineer > > Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere > Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 > Office : +31 36 7606656 > GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ > Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99 > > On 12 Jan 2015, at 13:48, Shahin Gharghi <ripe(a)rased.ir> wrote: > > Hi > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > -- > Shahin Gharghi > ---- > 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] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

Dominik thank you for your reply I've asked from the registration service department. But this is a problem for members. So we can discuss about it. cheers On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dominik Nowacki <dominik(a)clouvider.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Shahin and welcome to the list, > > I don’t think it’s the question for the list members though. > > > > Get in touch with RIPE directly and ask them about their position: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/contact > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact/contact-information > > > > 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 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. > > > > *From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On > Behalf Of *Shahin Gharghi > *Sent:* 12 January 2015 12:49 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number > > > > Hi > > > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > > > -- > > Shahin Gharghi >

1 0

Executive Board Decisions on GM Voting
by Nigel Titley 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Dear Colleagues, At the last RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting we discussed the issues that arose on the members-discuss mailing list regarding voting at the General Meeting (GM). These issues were summarised in my last mail to the list: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2014-July/001618.html The Board decided the following: A. Paper votes: There were some members who expressed concerns about electronic voting and would like to retain paper voting. While the Board believes that electronic voting is secure and stable, there is no compelling reason to remove paper voting at this time. Removing paper voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain paper voting for the moment. B. Proxy voting: This method of voting is used less frequently, but some members still use it and have indicated they would prefer to pass their vote to someone more informed and who they trust. The fact that submitting a proxy form requires some effort, and that members must submit proxy forms at least two weeks before the GM, also reduces the likelihood that proxy votes will be widely used. Removing proxy voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain proxy voting for the moment. C. Voting by acclamation: There was one suggestion to remove the possibility to vote by acclamation, or "show of hands". This option is not practically possible while there is electronic voting. However, removing the option would require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided not to remove this possibility from the Articles of Association but in practice this option will not be used. D. Extending the voting window: A number of members were in favour of extending the voting window. Electronic votes make up the majority of votes cast so the Board would like to do as much as possible to make it convenient for remote participants to cast their votes. The new system of registration through the LIR Portal means the registration period for electronic voting can also be extended. These changes present no administrative problems for the RIPE NCC and no change to the Articles of Association is required. The Board has therefore decided to extend registration for electronic voting until 18:00 on the day of the GM and extend the voting window until 09:00 on the Friday after the GM. The voting issues will be raised during the Report from the Executive Board at the General Meeting on 5 November. If you have any feedback on the voting at the GM, we hope you will let us know either at the GM itself or on this mailing list. I encourage all members to register for the GM through the LIR Portal. The new system allows you to register your attendance and voting preferences quickly and securely: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/gm-registration You can also see the discussion items and resolution to be voted on at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/agenda-gm-november-2… Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Sander Steffann 02 Aug '14

02 Aug '14

Hi, First, move this discussion to NCC Services and Members-discuss... > lets see this article > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.0… I think these are the most relevant parts. First the definitions: > “brokering services” means: > (i) the negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including from a third country to any other third country; or > (ii) the selling or buying of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including where they are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country. > “technical assistance” means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; technical assistance includes verbal forms of assistance.’. Then under article 2c: > 2. Annex III shall include key equipment and technology related to the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the following sectors: > [...] > (b) telecommunications; > [...] and > 3. It shall be prohibited to: > (a) provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of items listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol; and > (b) provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial asssistance related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol. As a networking person 'related to the provision [...] and use of items listed' does seem to include allocating number resources. I think we need some legal advice on this issue again... Cheers, Sander

4 6

Discussion summary on GM voting
by Nigel Titley 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, I would like to provide a summary of the discussion that took place here on voting at the General Meetings. The Executive Board will meet in September and discuss the issues that were raised on this mailing list. Please read the summary and if you have further comments to make, please do so on this mailing list or you can contact the Executive Board directly at<exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Kind Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman Summary of Discussion on GM Voting The initial mail to members-discuss requested that paper voting and proxy voting be removed as GM voting options. Nigel noted that other members had also requested that the time period for voting should be extended. Below is a breakdown of the discussion, outlining the points raised and the number of members in favour or against each proposal. Removing proxy votes For: 2 - This is easily replaced by electronic voting. Against: 1 - If I don’t have the time/knowledge to vote, a colleague can cast vote, allowing higher and more qualified participation. There was a request for the approximate number of votes cast by proxy. This has ranged from 11 to 19 since the introduction of electronic voting. Removing paper votes For: 6 - We are a technical community so this would be a natural move. - It is safer, faster, more eco-friendly and more convenient to vote electronically. - The GM Voting Report provides receipts and is verifiable. Against: 4 - There are issues relating to privacy and verifiable trust. - I understand how paper voting works but not electronic voting. - Paper voting is fun. - Voting receipts are a problem as they may facilitate "buying" of votes. There was a suggestion that people should automatically be registered for electronic voting and have to actively change that if they want to vote by paper ballot. Extending the time period for voting For: 6 - I need more time to cast my vote. - Suggestions of 24 hours up to four days. Most common suggestion was for 24 hours. There were three comments that the announcement of results should be made before the end of the RIPE Meeting. Nigel noted that making the announcement on Friday should be possible. Against: 0 Maintain practice of opening the voting window after discussion at the GM For: 6 - Discussions and presentations can change people’s minds. - Most people’s minds are made up anyway and the material is available online. - A vote without discussion is not very democratic. Against: 3 - The materials are available beforehand. - People have usually made up their mind beforehand anyway. Other Issues - Have a plaintext voting email instead of HTML only. - Remove voting by acclamation from Articles of Association.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

> 25 Jun 2014 19:35 lists-ripe(a)c4inet.net > a vote without debate leaves a bad taste, be it in $parliament or at > the NCC AGM. Indeed, it is not far away from a jury delivering a > verdict before the evidence has been presented. Nobody said no debate. At the moment you can vote without listening to the debate, what difference does it make being allowed to do the same the day before? I think it's unreasonable to insist all voters have to sit through it before being allowed to vote at all but if it is necessary (need a vote on that :) then lock the doors, anyone who leaves loses their vote, allow only physical votes. brandon

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Nigel Titley 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

On 25/06/14 01:31, Rob Golding wrote: >> Well, this is one thing we were asking about. We currently allow a >> voting window of 16 hours (which is an improvement on the original 15 >> mins). How much time do you think would be reasonable? > I'd be happy with 2 days/48-hours > This would mean that the results wouldn't be available during the meeting (as we normally hold the members' meeting on Wednesday evening). If this isn't a problem then fine, but we've had indications that people like to know the result during the meeting. Nigel

6 8

Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by _Network Operation Center (NOC) 25 Jun '14

25 Jun '14

Hello everybody, as a result of last weeks AGM and an intense discussion on the voting procedure I would like to request the Executive Board to put forward a resolution for the next General Meeting to abandon paper ballot voting. Reasoning: I inadvertently registered for electronic voting instead of paper ballot voting. By the time I realized my mistake I found out that the BigPulse electronic voting had already been set up and I couldn't change anymore. Then, after the AGM on Wednesday I actually was grateful, not having to make a choice in a matter of minutes, in order to turn in the paper ballots. I was also grateful that electronic voting only started at the end of Wednesdays AGM session, effectively preventing prematurely turned in votes. Not only took it some time and consideration putting six candidates in a row of preference. To make a good choice it was also essential to listen what each candidate had to say. I had enough time to sleep over it, talk to others, and re-read documents considering what had been said. This all added to a much more reflected vote. This also eases a number of things: Proxy Votes: No paper necessary anymore-register for electronic voting and forward the registration confirmation (which then should already contain the link to access the poll) to your proxy. Counting paper ballots: This is a manual process by which the cast paper ballots get entered into the same electronic voting system that the electronically cast votes end up in. With 5 resolutions plus 6 candidates times 119 paper ballots and a 4 (or more) eyes verification this takes hours of possibly error-prone monotony. That said, with the significant increase in the number of registered voters that the possibility to vote electronically and remotely stimulated, the possibility to vote by show of hands or acclamation seems at least questionable to me, since this would exclude the remote participants. This should be dropped as well. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG

10 12

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Jun '14

25 Jun '14

> 25 Jun 2014 18:46 sander(a)steffann.nl > I strongly disagree. This may be true for things that are published > months in advance and not further discussed during the AGM. At the last > AGM there was a lot of discussion on some subjects, and for me the > presentations of the candidates for the board also made a big > difference. People voting the day before are likely because they can't make the meeting so they won't see the presentations or discussion. Thus they should be considered not a valid opinion and barred from voting? They can't have prior or independently obtained data to form an opinion? > If people vote blindly then what point is there in having > an AGM with discussions in the first place? Those registered to attend the meeting could be blocked from voting prior to the presentation. You might have to force them to be in the room and not have their fingers in their ears too I don't think early voting should be an issue, usually it's hard enough to get people to vote at all so best not to discourage those that will. regards brandon

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Jun '14

25 Jun '14

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote: > No doubt BigPulse are a reputable company No idea but I don't trust any company that can't also include a plain text body, instead requiring the participant to trust more easily phishable vote email brandon

12 11

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

> that bit doesn't concern me, tbh. They make their business run on trust, > so if their trust breaks down, so does their business model. So probably > they are trustworthy. You're right but the conclusion doesn't follow. Plenty of banks etc are totally not trustworthy but stay in business by various means. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public... > No doubt the magic is the right magic, but I don't understand it. I'm just > more comfortable with something I understand, both at each point along the > way and in its entirety. It's not a problem that it's really low tech. > Sometimes that's good if it means we can all understand how it works. I don't have a problem with it, the mental image is the paper process done by xkcd people inside a machine and we all trust xkcd so it must be trustworthy brandon

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
by Brandon Butterworth 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

> We also feel that the current electronic voting window is sufficient to > allow all members in the service region to cast their votes (some > calculations show that if were to hold a General meeting in the easternmost > timezone in the region then the westernmost zone (Iceland) would still have > 2 hours of working time to cast their vote). However, if members > believe that the voting window should be extended we would > also like to hear from you. That sounds as tricky as trying to not miss the end of an ebay item I'm usually to distracted or in meetings and stuff. brandon

1 0

remove automated ticket system reply from member discussion list
by Lu Heng 18 Jun '14

18 Jun '14

Dear Colleagues: I understand some large cooperation might need ticket system to sort out their Emails, but it is really getting annoying every time you reply to the member mailing list you get 4-5 none-human responds. Should we contact these organizations and ask them to put a real human Email for this list? -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

22 41

Remove
by Joao Silveira 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Please remove our mail addres from this discussion. -- Joao Silveira HQ: Rua 28 de Janeiro 350 - B11 - 4400-335 Vila Nova de Gaia | PORTUGAL Phone: +351 227 136 188 | Mobile: +351 912 386 351 Rio Office: Rua Pinheiro Guimarãees, 150 - 22281-080 Rio de Janeiro | BRAZIL Phone: +55 (21) 2538-2318 | Mobile: +55 (21) 99798-3523

2 1

Cogent uses RIPE DB for spam
by Andrei Kushnireuski 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Hi Colleagues, First of all, happy Friday 13 =) Cogent uses RIPE DB for phone spam. My colleague just received a phone call from +31204621445 with IP Transit offer. Colleague's phone number is published as admin-c in RIPE DB only. For me it's very bad practice for same company like Cogent to use RIPE DB for spamming. Did anybody receive same calls/emails based on RIPE DB info? Thanks. - Andrei Kushnireuski AK1065-RIPE regID: cz.alfatelecom

10 14

Re: [members-discuss] remove automated ticket system reply from member discussion list
by Brandon Butterworth 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

and remove people sending html only email? > <html><head></head><body data-blackberry-caret-color="#00a8df" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The problem is, as an organisation, to set up this process will incur a cost and will require additional FTEs so that other services aren't impacted. I am not saying ‎this can't be done on the side, I am just saying I know how things work and what would end up happening under the current processes and workload. It's easier to just remove the entries from the discuss list and if the LIR contacts to ask what is going on, the person answering the call can explain. This is more of a short term project and would never justify additional FTEs and no argument can be made for them. </div> ...

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Cogent uses RIPE DB for spam
by Andrei 13 Jun '14

13 Jun '14

Valerii, RIPE DB contains actual information NOT for marketing purposes but to provide possibility to contact IP administrator/ tech and resolve any issues. In case of mass usage DB information for marketing purposes end users will try to hide/limit actual infromation in RIPE DB. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Valerii Lolin <vlelin(a)infiumhost.com> wrote: > and? > > it's great problem for you? > or they called to your own (private) number? > > > why your questions addressed to RIPE NCC members? > you want to discuss cogent policy? > > > > > 2014-06-13 15:12 GMT+03:00 Andrei Kushnireuski <ipas.master(a)gmail.com>: > >> Hi Colleagues, >> >> First of all, happy Friday 13 =) >> >> Cogent uses RIPE DB for phone spam. My colleague just received a phone >> call from +31204621445 with IP Transit offer. Colleague's phone number >> is published as admin-c in RIPE DB only. >> >> For me it's very bad practice for same company like Cogent to use RIPE DB >> for spamming. Did anybody receive same calls/emails based on RIPE DB info? >> >> Thanks. >> >> - >> Andrei Kushnireuski >> AK1065-RIPE >> regID: cz.alfatelecom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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 Alfa Telecom s.r.o. REGID: cz.alfatelecom nic-hdl: AK1065-RIPE phone: +420226020360

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] My Question To All LIR Members
by admin＠intl-alliance.com 29 May '14

29 May '14

That thought was kind of pointless after they refused to help. I've spent hours on their site manually updating all of their inaccuracies over the past few years. From one month to the next they can screw up entire ranges with their monthly updates. My networks do not run proxies period. I run vpn services and remote desktops, but never proxies. And vpn services cannot be classified the same as open proxies as they are totally different. On 2014-05-28 09:33, Edward Dore wrote: > Have you asked them why they believe the IP address space in question > is being used to run open/anonymous proxy servers? > > Edward Dore > Freethought Internet > > On 28 May 2014, at 09:30, admin(a)intl-alliance.com wrote: > >> I have already gone through the process of informing them, using >> their >> corrections form on their website, and pleading with them to update >> their database. For years, this worked just fine. They used to be a >> very >> cooperative company. Starting last week, they began marking huge >> sections of my ip addresses as anonymous proxies and completely >> removing >> any country information from them. Then these inaccuracies were then >> >> sold to all their clients and now sections of my ip ranges are all >> screwed up now and as a direct result of that, I lose business in my >> >> line of work. Here is the response I received from them after a very >> >> long email to them: >> >> Dear Mr. Twyler, >> >> As you're aware, we endeavor to provide accurate IP geolocation of >> Internet end-users and to identify proxies where possible in our IP >> intelligence products. We may not accept corrections to our data >> where >> we believe they do not increase the accuracy of our IP geolocation >> or >> improve proxy identification. >> If you'd like to communicate with our legal counsel, we invite you >> to >> email legal(a)maxmind.com. >> >> Regards, >> Jason Ketola >> V.P., Operations >> >> This response would have been tolerable had I been a proxy supplier. >> >> However I am not. And this company is completely unwilling to >> reconsider >> my case, even though I've informed them that they are causing me a >> massive loss of business by doing this. >> >> On 2014-05-28 09:10, Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca wrote: >> Hi Jared, >> >> What do you mean exactly? >> MaxMind != RIR >> >> MaxMind is only a company who sell geolocation services based on IP >> Address. >> Being member of a RIR is a completely different thing. >> >> Also, whats wrong on the maxmind geo database? >> >> I have updated several IP blocks on Ripe Database and maxmind >> updated >> it. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> El 28/05/2014 8:55, admin(a)intl-alliance.com escribió: >> Here is a question I propose to all RIPE NCC LIR members: >> >> What is the point in remaining a LIR member of the RIPE NCC if >> private >> companies like www.maxmind.com [1] do not have to adhere to the data >> >> that’s >> officially published in the NCC ip address database? If private >> companies are allowed to produce their own ip databases based on >> information not obtained in the official NCC database, why continue >> on >> with membership here? It seems pointless if a private company can >> completely ignore a LIR database, produce and then sell faulty >> databases >> to thousands of websites. >> >> Jared Twyler >> Chief Executive Officer >> IAPS Security Services, L.L.C. >> Skype: iaps_support >> FB: http://www.facebook.com/iapscorp [2] >> Blog: http://www.jareds-blog.com [3] >> Web: http://www.intl-alliance.com/store [4] >> >> ---- >> 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/ [5] >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >> From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. >> >> -- >> Daniel Baeza >> Centro de Observación de Red >> Dpto. Internet y Telefonía >> Television Costa Blanca S.L. >> Telf. 966190565 >> WEB: http://www.tvt.es [6] >> Correo: datos(a)tvt-datos.es >> >> --AVISO LEGAL-- >> >> En cumplimiento de la Ley Orgánica 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre de >> protección de datos de carácter personal, se pone en conocimiento >> del >> destinatario del presente correo electrónico, que los datos >> incluidos >> en este mensaje, están dirigidos exclusivamente al citado >> destinatario >> cuyo nombre aparece en el encabezamiento, por lo que si usted no es >> la >> persona interesada rogamos nos comunique el error de envío y se >> abstenga de realizar copias del mensaje o de los datos contenidos en >> el mismo o remitirlo o entregarlo a otra persona, procediendo a >> borrarlo de inmediato. >> Asimismo le informamos que sus datos de correo han quedado incluidos >> en nuestra base de datos a fin de dirigirle, por este medio, >> comunicaciones comerciales, profesionales e informativas y que usted >> dispone de los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y >> especificación de los mismos, derechos que podrá hacer efectivos >> dirigiéndose a Televisión Costa Blanca, S.L., C/ San Policarpo 41 >> Bajo. C.P: 03181 Torrevieja (Alicante). >> >> ---- >> 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/ [5] >> >> 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/ [5] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.maxmind.com > [2] http://www.facebook.com/iapscorp > [3] http://www.jareds-blog.com > [4] http://www.intl-alliance.com/store > [5] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ > [6] http://www.tvt.es

14 22

Re: [members-discuss] My Question To All LIR Members
by Hank Nussbacher 28 May '14

28 May '14

At 10:41 28/05/2014 +0100, Edward Dore wrote: No geo-database is perfect. For example, take RIPE. If we use: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/RIR-Statistics-Exchange-Format.txt Note they add a disclaimer which wasn't there in Feb 2012: cc = ISO 3166 2-letter country code, and the enumerated variances of {AP,EU,UK} These values are not defined in ISO 3166 but are widely used. The cc value identifies the country. However, it is not specified if this is the country where the addresses are used. There are no rules defined for this value. It therefore cannot be used in any reliable way to map IP addresses to countries Only after I complained did they add that line in. Why? Many companies used that info to do geolocation. Including a two major firewall vendors. So when a number of local companies in Israel decided to stop foreign based attacks by turning on "geo-location" in their f/w and allow only Israel based IPs to access their systems (think banks, insurance companies, municipalties, etc.), guess what happened to all of academia who have their IP ranges listed as country=EU due to ERX transfer from ARIN to RIPE. Yup! Professors were no longer able to access their pension fund info, students were unable to pay their municipal taxes - all because of geo-location. Took me weeks to find each and every one and get the sysadmin to fix their broken geo-location service. And to get the f/w vendors to fix their broken geo-location database pull. I had similar issues with Maxmind since Ookla was/is using them and returning incorrect info. I sent multiple correction reports to correction(a)maxmind.com and support(a)maxmind.com and never even received a response. So consider yourself lucky that you are getting responses from them. Bottom line: geo-location sucks and anyone who trusts their systems to it are only thinking along 98% perfection - rather than having a 100% perfect solution. -Hank >The RIPE database is not primarily concerned with GeoIP data, it is a >registry of who specific IP address blocks are allocated to and how they >can be contacted. > >MaxMind may draw some of their GeoIP data from the the RIR databases, but >they also get a lot of it from elsewhere, which allows them to be more >specific than just the country code contained in the RIPE database. > >Additionally, the RIPE database manual states the following for the >"country" field in the "inetnum" object: > >>"It has not been specified what this country means. It cannot therefore >>be used in any reliable way to map IP addresses to countries" > >As a customer of MaxMind, I depend on them providing me with accurate, >useful information about the location and use of IP addresses for fraud >screening etc. If MaxMind were to draw that information only from the RIPE >database, then not only would MaxMind be pointless (as I could just get >the information directly from RIPE) but the accuracy would be >significantly reduced (country level instead of city level) and it would >be easy for people to game the system simply by changing their objects in >the RIPE database to contain false information. > >MaxMind do not "make up" their information, they calculate it from >multiple sources and this is what MaxMind customers are buying - data >derived from multiple sources and processed by MaxMind's algorithms. > >Obviously these algorithms are never going to be 100% accurate, which is >why if people believe that the data contained in the MaxMind database is >inaccurate then they can submit suggestions for corrections which MaxMind >will then evaluate. MixMind are under no obligation to use any corrections >submitted and are quite right to reject them if they believe that they are >inaccurate or misleading for any reason. > >Accuracy of their database is important to MaxMinds' customers and thus to >MaxMind. If their database is largely inaccurate, then it is useless to >their customers and MaxMind will lose business as a result. Obviously it >is therefore in MaxMind's best interest to keep their database as accurate >and up to date as possible. > >As for the open proxy vs VPN, I can completely understand why MaxMind >could detect VPNs as open proxy servers and as a user of their minFraud >service I would expect to treat the two in exactly the same way because >they are providing an identical function - to obscure the location and >details of the end user. > >Edward Dore >Freethought Internet > >On 28 May 2014, at 10:02, ><mailto:admin@intl-alliance.com>admin(a)intl-alliance.com wrote: > >>I depend on Maxmind using data obtained from a central registry. If all >>ip tracing websites created their own databases with information they >>made up, we wouldn't bother with the RIPE database any more because it >>would become obsolete. We depend on ip tracing websites to gather their >>information from authority sites, not the garbage they produce on their >>own. And I'm only interested, as well as my end-users, of seeing ip >>information that I've registered in the appropriate places. Simply >>stating that "we're only interested in end-user locations" rather than >>ip registration data, sits badly in my mind. And it has also caught the >>attention of the RIPE NCC itself, which just sent me the following email >>regarding this situation: >> >>Dear Jared, >> >>Thank you for your email. >> >>We value your concern about correct registration details for internet >>resources. >> >>However the RIPE NCC has no authority on how private companies compile >>their data and how much they take information from the RIPE database in >>account. >>Did you contacted MaxMind directly and informed them about the >>mismatching information they provide? Because finally if information are >>incorrect then this is not only damaging companies like yours but also >>the reputation of the providers of this data. >> >>And I will forward your observation to my colleagues from the >><http://stat.ripe.net>stat.ripe.net team as there for Geolocation we are >>using data from >>MaxMind. >><https://stat.ripe.net/193.0.20.0#tabId=geo>https://stat.ripe.net/193.0.20.0#tabId=geo >> >>Then my colleagues will check if there could be any conflicting >>information in our own tools. >> >>-- >>Thank you again for bring up this topic. >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Marco Schmidt >>RIPE NCC >> >> >>On 2014-05-28 09:52, Alfredo Sola wrote: >>>>That thought was kind of pointless after they refused to help. I've >>>>spent hours on their site manually updating all of their inaccuracies >>>>over the past few years. From one month to the next they can screw up >>>>entire ranges with their monthly updates. My networks do not run >>>>proxies >>>>period. I run vpn services and remote desktops, but never proxies. And >>>>vpn services cannot be classified the same as open proxies as they are >>>>totally different. >>> >>>I think your issue is more a business model problem than a registry >>>or IP problem. >>> >>>What you are saying is that you depend on Maxmind providing the >>>location of your VPN servers / remote desktop servers rather than the >>>location of users computers connected to them. Maxmind, on the other >>>hand, is saying that they provide the location of users if they can, >>>or will mark the location as unknown. >>> >>>So your business model depends on Maxmind agreeing to provide to >>>their customers something which is not what they pay to obtain. And >>>they refuse. I personally don't think they can be blamed for that, but >>>that's something between your company and Maxmind. And nothing in this >>>has to do with RIPE. >> >>---- >>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] My Question To All LIR Members
by Gert Doering 28 May '14

28 May '14

Hi, On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:19:26PM +0100, Bill Lewis wrote: > ahh so I think I get it now... No, you're mixing up different cases. The original poster is providing VPN services, where the whole point is "hide the true origin of the user of the VPN service". Whether you call it "VPN" or "proxy" or whatever, this is just different technical means to achieve the same goal. Now, MaxMind caught up on this, and marks his IP ranges as "proxy services", aka "we don't know where in the world the user is" - which is quite correct. Now, if your business model is based on "I'm in the US, I'm offering VPN based services for money, so people can watch US-only television offerings" this tag would certainly wreck your business model. OTOH, that business model is bordering on fraud to begin with - getting paid to provide a way to circumvent content providers' restrictions that are there for a reason. (Of course I can see the point of someone actually *being* from the US, traveling abroad, wanting to watch his home TV shows - but I claim the majority of users just want to circumvent the restrictions, without actually being uS-centric) So - of *course* these VPN providers are unhappy if MaxMind provides correct data ("proxy service"). But such is business - your market niche just went away. Nothing RIPE is going to do about it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0