- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 09 Jul '12

09 Jul '12

Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> wrote: > On 09/07/2012 14:43, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hi Nigel: >> >> Thanks for sharing this. >> >> Correct me if I was wrong, to put in plain english for this long formal >> thing: >> >> most pay 2k-2.5k, large ones pay 4-5k, and very small one pay 1k. per year >> base. > > Yes, correct > >> >> If that is the case, then only the current "small" category people's >> fee are raised, is that correct? > > Yes > >> >> And I am not very clear about "Appendix III: Procedure for Members >> Selecting their own Membership Category", does that means everybody >> can select their membership category in which has no relevant to their >> resource count? so french telecom can select as a small one? > > No, you are absolutely right. But membership selections will be published, > so everyone can see that France Telecom is defrauding the rest of the > members by self declaring as small. We do however think that the majority of > members are honest and have a good idea of their own size. I think you might be right about french telecom as they are national company. But for many other business ISPs, if there is no punishment or if there is only counting on shame and blames(put on Frank's word), I would say a lot large LIR would go for regular if not small.(if they being blamed, they always can find XXX company have more resource than us but also selected small etc, as long as they are not the top on the list(so to say the largest one in small category), they will stay there even blame exsits), and another thing is, I am not very sure how well this self-declared system will work. And how you plan to publish the list? will that list based on name or the amount of resource count? e.g. Small LIR: A company /13 B company /14 C company /15 etc. If this is how it published, I think it might put quite some pleasure on the guy at top of the list in each category. If not, then I think a lot people can simply hide their name into the small LIRs as I don't think many of them are well know or many people well investigate other people's fees. > >> >> I think it might be a mis-reading here could you help me to understand >> it, thanks. > > No, you have understood perfectly. > > All the best > > Nigel -- 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.

1 0

Updates from RIPE on the DNS ussye
by Zoe O'Connell 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

I have seen no useful update from RIPE this morning, but I need something to pass on to internal staff and customers. Has anyone got anything? Opening a ticket is pointless as it won't get actioned quickly.

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012061901001911] Need help. Can't remove routes for ex Assigned PA.
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

Dear Members, Please help what better to do in this case. We have allocated PA. From this space we Assigned PA to customer. Customer has own AS and he created routes. Route objects doesn't have our mnt-by. He has another carrier. The customer to which we have assiged PA space sending a lot of mails to Hotmail. We are receiving thousands complains per day from Hotmail. We suggested to block this IPs for Hotmail. They tell that it can be done only in automatic mode when hotmail will receive many complains for this IPs. We already found IPs in some black lists. RIPE position in this case. While routes doesn't have RIPE mnt record - they can't do anything. Routes should be removed by our ex customer. Ex customer position. He won't remove routes until we will return money back. And tell us that he doesn't send any e-mails - all was made by his customers. In our agreement written that we don't return money back in this case. And if we will return money back - anyway we don't have any warranty of removing routes. Questions: 1. How can we restrict using this routes right now? 2. How can we remove wrong routes (see an example bellow)? Additional information: ------------------------------ Example of route: route: xx.xx.xx.0/24 descr: route for xxxxxxxxxxx origin: asYYYY mnt-by: zzzzz-mnt source: RIPE # Filtered Where: - xx.xx.xx.0/24 - IPs from our allocation (Assigned PA). - ASyyyy - AS our ex customer. - zzzzz-mnt - MNT of our ex customer. -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.

10 19

Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working from ripe DNS server
by Giuseppe Tanzilli - Serverplan 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

Hi, after the issue the ripe services had today evening, we still have one network whre delegation for reverse is still not working. Of course this is a nightmare as all mail traffic is affected. Anyone know a way to contact ripe support outside of office hours ? thanks -- -------------------------------------------------- Giuseppe Tanzilli Serverplan

4 4

Interesting IP count
by Lu Heng 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi Colleuages: Today I come across an very interesting article which I'd like to share with your guys and see what your guys think about it. http://ilia.ws/archives/236-ISP-Popularity-by-Domain-Count.html If what said in the article was true(which it should be as all the data from the article should be public data), if all the cable network start to use NAT, just in sense of domains, we might have IP supply for few more decades. And it would be very interesting if someone from Ripe NCC can share with us what is the most IP consuming business in the planet. In which, is that service can use NAT in sometime future? I talked to an UK telecom provider one day in a ripe lunch, he told me that their network is already partly using NAT(sorry I didn't remember his name, but I am sure he is on this mailing list), and he only need a /21 for entire network. And another thing was, I heard from one of my friend in the Apanic meeting, that someone is selling entire A class there for 10 USD/ IP. We don't know if there is already some successful story there regarding IP sales. But seems to me, based on what happened on Asian now, at least in China, as I heard from many of my colleagues there, there was no real shortage there at this time. No body goes bankrupt because of no IPs left. So that raise an interesting point, since 60% of the world domain is in fact wasted, is that the same story with IP usage. After all, we allocated almost half of the pool before RIR even exists. The current way of IP distributing results a very noneffective way of "past business" IP usage as well(e.g. someone changed their business from cable business to an enterprise business, of course that guy will not return Ripe NCC his additional free 2 M IPs). So when their is a real market for IPv4, and all the latency space come to sale, will we last much much longer than everybody expected? We our-self have few dozen of enterprise customers, and they are already paying 3-5 USD/ month /IP for years, as asking them to re-program their software and re-provision their business into IPv6, the cost will be enormous for them, and one more thing is, most software writers don't really like IPv6, as it is hard to remember and hard to type(it will be a whole lot easier if you just remember the IP and type it every time you have to do so, rather than copy paste, we all know the reason). So, even IP price eventually raise to 30USD even 50USD, it is still very hard for them to switch it over to IPv6 as long as they don't have IPv6-only client, because they are paying this amount of money for IP per year anyway. Another thing is, one thing aside from RIR meetings and ISP meetings, we didn't really hear a lot about IPv6. IPv6 come into developer is still something new and interesting, and one guy I talked in the IPv6 workshop in the Ripe64, a software developer for an Austria local company, who don't even know that IPv6 has been around for almost a decades. Since Ripe is almost finish it's public pools, my last question is, will one day all the wasted IP address being effectively picked up because of existing marketplace, and that market place will last us another 3 decades before we really going to IPv6 ear? Go Ipv6 Pro Last forever(this reason doesn't really come into play because it this can be a reason convince enterprise customer then it should be done 10 years ago.). unlimited amount of address space.(same as above) cost reasons. con: need new router new config new practice and testing almost every part of the business(from software to hardware). very hard to remember and write. (welcome to add more on this list) IPv4 pro you know how it works it works for all of our business life. it is easy to remember con cost reasons. But let's look at how much we are paying Ripe NCC now, for large ones, they are paying more coffee in the office than they are paying Ripe thing. So does that really hurts them when they pay 20USD per IP, look at their margin and their current costs structure, I would say for most business, it should be fine. If there is enough supply in the market for next decades, and keep the price well below 50 USD per IP, I believe 99% of business would accept this price and go on with their life. History already tell us most of us don't look too far to the future(otherwise we are already there). Hope my a bit of 2 cents can get more interesting thoughts come around. -- -- 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.

11 20

Re: [members-discuss] Interesting IP count
by Alexandr Saroyan 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, Dear friends, Don't forget that idea of the Internet is that each single host should be able to communicate to any other single host. I strongly believe and I think everyone on this mailing list sure that there are many approaches to live with IPv4. It is time to understand that all that are temporary solutions. Your life will become more and more hard if you go deeper and deeper with temporary solutions. There is class of "Specialists" for whom it is easier to deploy a temporary solution and say 'Hah it works' instead of making a bit effort to deploy something permanent. Each LIR is piece of the Internet - don't trust strategy of your piece to such lazy "Specialists". Don't think like "I need a solution", think like "I need stable, reliable and long lasting solution". Internet is in production service, it is not your grandmother's home LAN, each of you must feel responsibility. Temporary solution is bad for production and permanent solution is only and only good thing for growth and stability of any production system like Internet is. And finally: Stop counting IP addresses, just do your contribution to IPv6 deployment by deploying it within your piece of the Internet. As fast as we converge to IPv6 as fast we will remove all the bad stuff like NAT and will finally stop counting IP addresses. Best. /Alex -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:04 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Interesting IP count Lu Heng wrote ... > So, US are using 40% of total world IP supply for it's 10% of world > internet user base, while asian for years, is using about 10% of world > IP address to supply 40% of internet user base. > > In which, tells us that if US can free us even half of it's IP address > space, that will supply us maybe another decades. You make a *very* incorrect assumption: That the main use of IP addresses is "access" to the internet - completely ignoring all the devices/systems/networks/etc that hold those services you are accessing - the bulk of which are in the EU and US. IPv6 is not a new idea. Dual-Stacking is not a new idea. IMHO if you're still deploying systems and devices that only work v4 your business is about to die - attaching a bit of NAT based life-support isn't going to save it. Rob ---- 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.

2 1

Interesting IP count
by Lu Heng 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

Hi On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:54:09AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: >> In which, tells us that if US can free us even half of it's IP address >> space, that will supply us maybe another decades. > > This would be very ill-spent effort. > > If we do the same stupid things a few more decades, like "write new software > with IPv4 only, sell millions of phones and other gadgets with IPv4 only", > migration to something reasonable will be much *harder*. > > If we had done the IPv6 thing 5 years ago already, hardly any mobile > device would have been affected - today, there's millions of iThings and > Androids that don't support IPv6 on 3G - stupid and avoidable pain. > You are perfectly right, but in the real business world, 99% company operate exactly like how western country works--every CEO is in office for current amount of time, and most of them worry much more about this Q rather than 5 years later in which he might not even in office any more. So if today cost him 10m to fix the problem for 5 years, or cost him 20m to fix the problem forever, not many of them will go for 20m option. The real reason behind it, is just like Jeff said in the IPv6 workshop, most of us are technical people, with not real much of business practice in mind. > 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- -- 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. -- -- 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.

1 0

ISP IRC channel
by Lu Heng 11 May '12

11 May '12

Hi Does anybody know any commom ISP tech channel that my tech guy can join and discuss(abuse, networking quality etc) -- -- 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.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [rt.smartbunker.net #1622] AutoReply: Re: amendment proposal for the Article of association
by James Blessing 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

On 28/03/2012 11:49, SmartBunker Ops via RT wrote: > > > Thank you for you're email. > > There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been > assigned an ID of [rt.smartbunker.net #1622]. Please include this string > in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. Please someone fix this before Nigel starts writing poetry... J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association
by poty＠iiat.ru 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Hello, My point of view - the idea behind Sergey's suggestion is clear - give more power to the active part of the membership. I support this idea, because it solves two important things: 1. The "additional" topics for the GM agenda are not decided by some private conversations to the EB, even if there is a way to get in touch with Nigel or someone else from the EB. Why should there be difference in the procedure of adding a topic in case of "one person ask EB to add this" or "you should have to have 180 people writing the petition to the EB to be able to add the topic directly"? The transparency of the whole procedure will increase when we lower the 2% threshold. As an example of this I can say about RPKI voting on the last GM - "someone" decided - every members have to abide. There was no 2% discussions, nor transparency about who and with what authority added this topic to the agenda. 2. There is no way to influence the agenda after it is published - just no time for this, according to the AoA. This is what happened on the last GM, where most of the members presented were asking for some changes/additions and it was impossible to do that, so the GM was like a farce, where everybody plays their roles knowing the absurd situation. Relating proxy voting and hostage of the agenda - there are topics which are in the agenda by AoA, nobody ask a person to stay the whole GM and vote for every resolution (instead of have some beer)! And is "many voices - more power" not the sign of democracy we all are talking about in all case of vote procedures? I'm against also about the representation of EB for members will. The voting for EB membership is seldom and not flex enough to live with so huge customer base. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

amendment proposal for the Article of association
by sergey myasoedov 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Dear members of the RIPE NCC, as you probably know, there are more than 8.000 members in the RIPE NCC association. There are a lot of us. Members of the association can discuss things regarding the activity of association on General Meetings two times yearly. According to the Article of Association (AoA), the Agenda of GM has been performed by executive board. There are some obligative things to be included in the Agenda (elections, budget, charging scheme etc), and some things can be discussed upon proposal of the EB. Another possiblity to put some things into Agenda is the request of association members. Currently at least 2% of members should vote for adding items into Agenda. Respective to the total number of members this means that _160_ LIRs should ask the EB to discuss something that is not included in the Agenda. From my opinion that is too much. No more than 250-300 members are usually attending GM, even with the electronic voting. And 2% threshold means ~50% of active members, so there is no possibility to raise any question to the GM level. And this is the reason for my proposal: to change the threshold in the section 15.6 of AoA to 0.3% or to 30 or 40 members. Any suggestions? Appendix: Article 15 of AoA Article 15 – General Meeting: Convocations. Agenda. Resolutions 15.1 The Executive Board shall send the convocations for the General Meeting, including the agenda containing the subjects for the General Meeting, a URL to the verbatim text of the proposed resolutions and, if applicable, the draft Activity Plan and draft budget, to the Members at least four weeks before the Meeting. In the event the Executive Board does not have full authority under paragraph 10.1 of these Articles of Association, the authority to convoke a meeting shall be vested in the Management Team. 15.2 General Meetings shall be convened by the Executive Board by e-mails sent to the e-mail addresses as recorded in the Register (see article 5). 15.3 The agenda for the Annual Meeting shall include the following subjects: a. the adoption of the Financial Report; b. the discharge of the Executive Board with regard to its actions as they appear from the Annual Report; c. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board. 15.4 The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year: a. a discussion of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by the Executive Board; b. the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board; c. a discussion of the policy and the quality of services (to be) rendered by the Association. 15.5 If applicable, the agenda for the Annual Meeting or another General Meeting shall also include the following subjects: a. the extension of the period within which the Executive Board shall submit the Annual Report (as referred to in paragraph 14.2), which shall also constitute an extension of the period within which the Annual Meeting - at which the Annual Report is to be submitted - shall be held; b. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; d. upon proposal by the Executive Board: approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure; e. other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a group of) Members of the Association (pursuant to paragraph 15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting. 15.6 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association. 15.7 The General Meeting may only vote on resolutions with respect to subjects for which the verbatim text of the related proposed resolutions has been sent to the Members in the manner set out above. 15.8 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least one-tenth (10%) of the total number of possible votes, the Executive Board shall convene a General Meeting within a period of four weeks. If the application has not been complied with within fourteen days, the applicants may then proceed to convene the Meeting themselves in the manner in which the General Meeting is convened by the Executive Board. 15.9 As long as all the Members of the Association are present or represented at a General Meeting, (legally) valid resolutions can be passed on all subjects brought up for discussion, even if the formalities prescribed by law or by these Articles of Association for the convocation and holding of Meetings have not been complied with, provided such resolutions are passed unanimously. -- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov

10 13

Update on RIPE NCC Police order
by Nigel Titley 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Dear All, On the subject of the "Police Order" the RIPE NCC received last year, I would like to let you know what has been happening since then. As reported earlier, the RIPE NCC has sought legal advice and, having received that, decided to unfreeze the resources we were ordered to freeze under the police order. This was done in close communication with the Dutch officials involved. Further to that, the RIPE NCC legal team has drawn up a summons, which has been lodged with the court in The Hague. (The full Dutch text as well as a short English summary is available at https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/sum…) A reply from the Dutch State is expected in June; what happens after that depends on the course of action the court decides to take. I'm afraid we don't expect a final decision before mid 2013. I'll keep you fully updated as things unfold. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC

3 2

Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. I feel quite strange being now classified as small, because we are using the smallest assignment possible (one /21 IPv4, one /32 IPv6, one AS). I studied the computational algorithm for assigning points, and I feel quite strange points for IPv4 being calculated this way: (first year of allocation LESS 1992) * IPv4 units; in our case, this means => 2011 - 1992 * 1 => 19. See http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calcula… for scoring method. This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources. This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a fee computing method. It looks like more we asked far from year 1992, more we have to pay. I don't see really a logic in this method. Any opinion? Can someone enlight me please? Antonio Nati

22 36

whois mntner
by Richard Kojedzinszky 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

Dear members, Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I am missing the auth: fields. $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE # Filtered >From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query the full object: mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 auth: X509-2577 mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then send it back, this does not work anymore. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.

5 7

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being finished ready for lock down. brandon

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Comunicaciones ACOTELSA > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:18 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > ... > > And I don´t like speak about the general meetings to deal the new > charge scheme because in my enterprise, with only one /26 IPv4, we > can´t pay the cost to go to the general meeting (travel, salary) and I > and imagine that there are more like us so only the big enterprise can > assist, negotiate and vote (although we can use the internet vote). Yes! You knew this! Why you don't use your vote rights through the Internet then? It doesn't rise you expenses and you have had the full ability to vote for all questions since this year! Many LIRs got the opportunity at the last meeting. Our company can't (like yours) go to each general meeting, but I took every opportunity for 3 year already to vote electronically! > > In resume, I can't understand why a foundation increase its expenses > year over year. If you don't take part in the community discussions and don't vote - you'll never know why. You can read all about last GM and learn that for the coming year RIPE NCC will publish expenses in more details. You can suggest to eliminate an activity to lower the overall cost and if you have support - the increases may stop! Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> Google: chinese olympics ipv6 google UK olympics ipv6 > Happened in 2008 nuff said not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of stuff that really must work for the Olympics. Tough, would have been good to do. brandon

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> > I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for > > the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the > > post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being > > finished ready for lock down. > > So what about "tomorrow"? Or is this bad again, because it's Friday? There is that, it is also still before the Olympics (OK, you wanted a tl;dr explanation but that also can mean too long, didn't write) brandon

1 0

FW: Problem transit traffic
by Azamat Soyuzbekov 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. On the request is silent and does not meet.

5 8

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run out now? how much is left.. etc :P and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare for it :P On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > > > cheers > > Bill > uk.kijoma > > ---- > 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 5

Problem transit traffic
by Azamat Soyuzbekov 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe? maintainer who block traffic mntner: KNIC-MNT

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Sascha Lenz 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi, Am 14.02.2012 um 22:05 schrieb Bill Lewis: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > i'm a little unclear about what you're asking for here - if you handed in a request for a subsequent IPv4 allocation, and it was denied, then you most certainly got an explanation about the reasons. Probably it's just my english skills being impaired by the early morning and lack of coffee, but it don't see you mentioning WHY you couldn't get another allocation. Most likely you just didn't get your documentation right or something, since at this point it should be no problem to get another IPv4 allocation according to the current policy if you get the bureaucracy right. Just talk to the NCC, they certainly will explain everything. We can't really help you here due to lack of information about your situation. PROBABLY the problem is the space you "rented", so it looks like you don't need as much additional space as you're requesting because you already have that. Or you didn't register this stuff right and the NCC doesn't like you anymore for being a bad boy violating policy... But that's just a wild guess. Only the IPRAs can explain. We don't know your request or your ticket details. There is still some bits an pieces left in the RIPE IPv4 Pool. If you can show you need some more and prove your needs according to the current policy, you'll get some of the cake. P.S.: Nice to see you already got an IPv6 allocation - just push your partners and vendors a little more towards it. If they don't see the need for IPv6 at this point of time, you seriously should consider looking for other vendors and partners - next time you come back asking for another IPv4 allocation, it really might be too late. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
by Simon Talbot 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk<http://www.nse.co.uk/> From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees >IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole > Internet. More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info(a)3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resour… “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip(a)kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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.

12 17

A Whim about next year's fees
by Lu Heng 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- 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.

10 10

RIPE NCC Charging scheme task force announcement
by Nigel Titley 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Dear colleagues, As announced, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has initiated a Charging Scheme Task Force to look at the principles of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The task force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of future Charging Schemes - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for legacy address space holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the RIPE NCC General Meeting in April 2011 The task force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force ------------------------------ To have an efficient task force, the group will be limited in size. The group will consist of participants from three groups, namely: - RIPE NCC Executive Board - Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members - Eva Ornberg, Filip Herman, Olga Fomina, Piotr Strzyzewski and Vladislav Potapov - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima The Executive Board has selected from each membership category (Extra Small, Small, etc.) one member by drawing lots from those who volunteered. The RIPE NCC staff have informed the people involved and will organise the task force. Because there has been a lot of interest in the charging scheme, there will be a separate mailing list (cs-tf(a)ripe.net) for all those interested and those who want to be informed and discuss this topic. The task force will report back to this mailing list on its progress. You can subscribe to the charging scheme mailing list at: https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cs-tf. Regards, Nigel Titley Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC

1 0