- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

A summary for Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hi I think this discussion is going a cycle in past few days, I think I'd like to do a little here for fellow colleagues so make more people understand what have been going on. Let me start with a summary here, every time I saw two argument together with two main charging suggestions. Argument 1: fees should related to Ripe NCC workload rather than address distribution.(in the sense that Ripe NCC is in fact NOT RIPE, it is just a secretary service offered to people who need help from the community, the more help you have, the more you pay). Argument preferred model: work-load based, or at least everybody pays same. Argument 2: Fees should related to address distribution because the more address you have, the more valuable you are, and you of course should pay more.(in a time IPv4 are almost ready to become trade-able commodity, this might make sense). Argument preferred model: IP address share based.(at present time, since IPv6's trade value are not clear in future 10 years, this mostly refer to IPv4) p.s. since every time this argument being bought up always being followed by reply like "someone still stay in ipv4 will die", just to make clear that here is pure discussion in a business cost sense in which has nothing to do with the discussion if we should go for ipv6 or not. And Let's do a quick calculation to see which argument preferred to which party. If we charge people by price per address..then...here's a simple math: Total Ripe address:32.78 /8=549957140.48 about 550millions. Total Ripe expenditure each year: 20millions Euro. 20/550=0.0367 per address each year. So most small LIR(2048 address) will pay ...74 Euro/year. and if you are media LIR(with /16), you will pay... 2405 Euro/year. And if you are large LIR(people with /8), then you will pay 615723.8272Euro/year(for people agree on argument two, companies in real world with over /8, of course should be very well above millions income level, so it shouldn't be a problem for them). However, please note, if a charging model based on IP address number is being done, then the total Ripe expenditure might increase due tax changes. Let's say the premiums are 50% additional cost. For small LIRs, they will pay 130Euro a year, for media, it will be 3700 euro a year, and for real large ones, it will be around 1 millions euro a year. And if everyone pays same: 20,000,000/8000=2500Euro/year So, in term of pure cost assumption, media and large LIR will prefer a model close to "everyone pays the same", while for small and extra small LIRs, cost per IP is much more preferred even Ripe starting pay taxes. Since theoretically every LIR has one vote regardless their size, cost per IP model might get passed consider the number of small and extra small LIRs. But...there is a reality that most small and extra small LIR never attended any Ripe event...not even come to vote while most large ones always do. So in term of that, large ones are in fact paying more for make community more active(sending one person to Ripe meeting will at least cost 2000 euro a time consider the working time loss and all the other expenditures), and of course they have more power in the vote, as no matter how much voting power there is for small LIRs, if they don't use it, they don' have it. Hope this summary can help everybody have more clear view of what is going on in past discussions and future better future discussion. -- 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 12

Re: [members-discuss] A summary for Proposal for New RIPENCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

7 8

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by poty 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, I think the members forgot several things about RIPE NCC, which has been pointed out in the Charging Scheme Task Force Report (it seems nobody read it): 1. IP addresses is not goods. Nobody has transfered the rights to sell IPs to any RIR and nobody is able to do this. 2. From the point 1-> RIPE NCC earn money only for services. 3. Taxation of services could be rather difficult, as soon as the expenses is not really easily confirmed. In case of reselling (IPs) RIPE NCC will have to pay taxes for the "goods" (IPs) which the RIR "owns". 4. IPs are for the Internet, not for the companies. Nobody prevents any company to develop to any size (in IPs count), so thee is not any monopoly on them. 5. There are many other resources (ASN, PI, reverse DNS...) which RIRs give. It's not possible to name one of them as main, the others - as not important. 6. RIPE NCC exist many years. There are many historical principles of distribution of IPs. Some of them are "legacy space", "minimal size", "2-year planning"... Many honest companies will be trapped with such big changes in the policy (for example, when our LIR got our first block the "minimal size" was /19, we use about 50% in assignments from the block now). Most tough question is the legacy space which is very unstructured and companies used the blocks not paying anything for them. So the counting of RIPE NCC IPs is not very accurate. There are several other reasons covered in the abovementioned report. I'm surprised that in spite of Leader Telecom representative took part in the TF, in the list there are thoughts like the company speaker has not read the document. Regards, Vladidlav Potapov ru.iiat

1 0

"classful" charging scheme that still charges for resources
by Andrea Cocito 14 Jul '12

14 Jul '12

Hello all, after all the discussions I cannot understand what the problem would be with a scheme like the following: a) Member LIRs are divided into 16 categories, named /5, /6, /7, .. / 20, /21 b) Your category is the smallest route that could contain the total IPv4 allocated space of your LIR c) Your fee in euro is T/2^C, where C is your category and T the total RIPENCC costs. Seems simple and fair, it is still a category based model and thus it does not change the tax status of RIPE, and in example: - Up to 2048 IP addresses you are class /21 and pay about 100 euro - Up to 4096 IP addresses you are class /20 and pay about 200 euro - Up to 8192 IP addresses you are class /19 and pay about 400 euro - Up to 16384 IP addresses you are class /18 and pay about 800 euro - Up to 32768 IP addresses you are class /17 and pay about 1600 euro - Up to 65535 IP addresses you are class /16 and pay about 3200 euro ... and so on. Some corrections improvements might be considered to take in other exhaustable resources (IPv6 address space, ASn) and even to some extent non-exhaustable ones (number of tickets per year, number of records or operations in the database). Has a schema like this ever been considered or voted upon ? Regards, A.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Sebastian Abt 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net>: > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list(a)internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- 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. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

4 5

New charging model
by eifel-net GmbH 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hello, for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR may pick category "small" without beeing punished. Peter ============================================== Angaben gem. § 35a GmbHG ============================================== EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Michael Bergeritz Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann für Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) (Installationsunterstützung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) Tel. 02251-9700-36 Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) eMail: info(a)eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, daß wir keine Zusendung von Werbung per eMail oder Fax wünschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich zugestimmt haben.

11 14

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