- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

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

28 May '14

it's like blacklist for spammers...even though a lot of spammer claim they are obeying the can-spam law, they still can not sue spamhuis for blacklisting them, because end of the day, spamhuis are only express their opinion and they do not force anyone to use their opinion. same for the location thing, they only express their opinion and they are not forcing anyone to believe in them...so aside from contact each content provider or maxmind their self, i really don't see much we can do about it. but really...i don't think ripe member mailing list is something for this kind of discussion about private business... On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Bill Lewis <Bill.lewis(a)kijoma.co.uk> wrote: > hi, > > this has become a problem for us recently. Customers reporting sites such as > netflix and spotify declaring that they are in a different country. > > The least this does is change their web pages to the language making it near > impossible to use, the worst is a complete denial of service due to being > outside the service coverage area. > > We have had to ask customers of these services to pressure the content > providers to resolve their location database issues as the likes of Maxmind > are near impossible to gain any action out of from our experience. > > It seems if paying customers of the content providers growl at them then the > problem gets fixed a lot faster than an ISP contacting Maxmind etc.. > > Surely it isn't hard for the likes of Maxmind to use the top level country > data from RIPE at least, before bolting on their localising data? > > I am sure there are malicious entities out there feeding these databases > with junk for the fun of it too.. > > -- > Bill Lewis > Kijoma Broadband > > > > On 28/05/2014 11:16, Sinan Özşekerci wrote: > > I can’t understand why I have to spend time end effort to correct a private > company’s database and helping them to earn more money where they don’t > mind to harm buissness of other ones with distributing false information > about them. > > > > This comes to me like some kind of blackmailing, harming you in first place > and forcing you to help them serve better and make more money. > > > > In our case , maximind is showing the location of our IP subnets in a > “Village” which of the name is the same as our company just by coincidence, > and is hundreds of km away from our HQ, in a totally different city. > > > > So all these algorithms and fancy ways they use to retrieve these “more > specific” data is crap for me. > > > > > > As a LIR , I only know RIPE, and since RIPE is the Authority, I expect them > to rely on their own database which has the information that I have control > on, and not to some 3th party moneymakers. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Sinan ÖZŞEKERCİ > > > > > > > > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Edward Dore > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:41 PM > To: admin(a)intl-alliance.com > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] My Question To All LIR Members > > > > 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, 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 > stat.ripe.net team as there for Geolocation we are using data from > MaxMind. > 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. > > > > ---- > 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. -- 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.

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] My Question To All LIR Members
by admin＠intl-alliance.com 28 May '14

28 May '14

What makes matters even worse, is that last month in late April I received a last thousand ip address allocation from RIPE. I didn't even route it/announce it until this past week. I haven't even deployed this new range yet and already Maxmind has it all marked as anonymous proxies. And this is on a brand new allocation that hasn't even been deployed yet to any one. On 2014-05-28 09:42, 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

1 0

My Question To All LIR Members
by admin＠intl-alliance.com 28 May '14

28 May '14

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 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 Blog: http://www.jareds-blog.com Web: http://www.intl-alliance.com/store

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working fromripe DNS server
by None 10 May '14

10 May '14

36 44

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Vlad Dascalu 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

>> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner(a)nodemax.com>wrote: > > > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered > by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in > the telecoms market. > > > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > [image: logo] > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work > .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s .. > > > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been > issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were > issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 > blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... > 1K would have been fine. > > > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has > all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say > are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or > not. > > > > Now we have given back *promptly* 4 million phone numbers some big mobile > companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those > numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them > will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or > has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to > keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will > ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given > back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a > demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less > than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so > mis -managed). > > > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such > will make you smile .. > > > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > > > Regards > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [ > mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net>] > *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive > change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look > to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying > reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 > requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for > others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't > think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few > more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might > have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would > appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses > sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who > had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and > doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop > to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying > that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't > have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state > because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal > here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, > so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your > understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no > problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release > them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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/view > > 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/view > > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. >

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Paolo Di Francesco 18 Dec '13

18 Dec '13

Hi Tony, 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing. The rest is just noise. Paolo > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not > bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does > in the telecoms market. > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t > work .... all it will do is create another market for those with > extra IP’s ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had > been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some > ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, > but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not > Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but > that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they > say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer > or not. > > Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big > mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some > of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the > service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using > them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run > out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and > can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the > big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be > given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce > resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers > where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just > allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of > such will make you smile ... > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the > Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to > create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must > look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz > <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, > denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 > letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it > obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand > IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small > IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, > releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact > for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few > more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP > addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy > IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 > directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them > all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may > even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you > have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't > want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or > in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own > those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, > I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same > time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for > your understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net > <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or > elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so > all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of > effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be > no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to > release them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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/view > > 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/view > > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it

6 7

IPV4 market
by Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer

4 3