- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

Who elected to the fee task force?
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi Last time there was a opening for 4 members to join the new member fee task force, was the four member already selected? -- -- 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.

2 2

SOPA and Ripe's police order
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi colleagues: As a owner of a company have great relation of fighting censorship in China, I feel strongly about today's bill, and should like to share few of my concerns and thoughts about how the things might going. I personally didn't know we have so many regulations in EU about internet before I raised my ISP business. and I didn't realize that receiving legal latter will be part of the business.(as my lawyer count, on average, we receive about 100-200 legal notice per day, and we need to take down over 100 domains each day for the copy right infringement). Futurenally, I also have a company in China, so that legal costs has been kept in a relative low level. In last year short after the Ripe 63, Ripe was ordered by Dutch police force to take measurement of certain IP ranges.with today's US bill, we are very much concerning what government might take lead to in the future of internet. In China, all ISP have to censer themselves before they allow anything going public, otherwise it will results hash punishment up to a level that entire data center can be disconnected just by single offensive website(which in view of certain interest group). Will that happen one day in EU or US, if this trends continues? People might know that many Chinese use VPN service overseas to get over the firewall built by the government, however, as a company have relation in the business, we also see another type of VPN service being offered in China has increase popularity, it was offered to foreign Chinese in order also them to get back China. The reason for them to "to back China" is this: http://www.iqiyi.com/dianying/20120110/376d083f97061688.html Instead of actual video, You will see a quote "This video is only available for mainland China customers due to copyright restrictions" The reason this happen is because large amount of Chinese company(often legally US based) get sued by copyright groups in US/EU, therefore they impose the censorship to censer the content out of China. Does this censorship has anything different from the government censorship in China? Was that both block of certain content because of the interest of certain group of people? I am personally not interested in politics, the right or wrong of the content does not interest me. but as far as I have been to three Ripe meetings, I do feel a strong sense from the persons built the internet(look at how the basic protocol is written, it was very surprise me that anybody can announcing any range that doesn't require some sign of paper), that the internet should be a open and free place to share what you think what you thought, but not a place that police and government can break in at any minus and tell you what to do. As ISP, we are the ground of the internet, if this trends continues, I was very much worried that one day we have to do what Chinese ISPs are doing, we have to look carefully about every website's content and afraid in one middle night our entire business can be shut down due to something that we don't even know of. I thought it was impossible in western country, until I saw how aggressive the SOPA/Protect IP looks like. I don't know if something similar will happen in EU in a near future, my company lawyer told me that as long as we have data center here in EU, we are bounded by the EU laws. So are you, my colleagues. Here is just my 2 cents thought, I would hear from any colleagues that share the same concern as me and my company do. The raising legal costs and restrictions will not only damage the small business, start ups, it also require us one day become some sort of "internet local government" to police our client, and I wish that day never happen. -- -- 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

RIPE DB NRTM access.
by Pawel Tyll 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

Hello people (and ticket bots :>), I wanted to do some BGP filtering automation today, learned some interesting things in the process. I decided on setting up a local mirror of RIPE IRR and was quite puzzled with reasoning behind this: http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/nrtm-mirroring So, I can download the whole database snapshot for free from ftp.ripe.net, wasting bandwidth and other resources, or on the other hand I can pay for doing things the right and efficient way, which in the process is effectively cheaper for all involved parties. So the question is - what gives? :) - why does RIPE insist that I download >200MB of compressed data instead of catching up probably few hundred KB of daily changes? --Pawel.

7 11

Task Force
by Nigel Titley 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

Folks, I've had twenty volunteers already for the charging scheme task force. I'm going to give it to the end of today (midnight, GMT) and then I'm going to close the call. We'll then select, randomly, four of these volunteers to sit on the task force. All the best Nigel

17 25

Executive Board Activity Since the RIPE NCC General Meeting
by Nigel Titley 22 Dec '11

22 Dec '11

Dear all, We would like to give you an update on the thoughts and decisions of the RIPE NCC Executive Board since the RIPE 63 Meeting and RIPE NCC General Meeting three weeks ago. On Friday, 18 November, the Executive Board met for a teleconference to review the events and discussions that took place during that very busy week. First of all, we were all very pleased by the opportunity to meet so many of our members; we appreciate the lively discussions and see them as a sign that the RIPE NCC membership is very much alive and kicking. Thank you all for your contributions, whether they took place here on the mailing list or at the microphones in Vienna. The main business we conducted during our Board meeting revolved around the Charging Scheme, Budget and Activity Plan for 2012, as you would probably expect. As the proposed Charging Scheme did not find sufficient support, we will use the 2011 Charging Scheme for 2012. Because the 2011 Charging Scheme does not explicitly say that legacy space resources will have no impact on membership fees, the Board has decided to formally waive fees for legacy space resources for the coming year. With a view towards a sustainable and member-supported Charging Scheme, the Board would like to call for a small task force of RIPE NCC members and RIPE NCC staff to work together with Executive Board members on models for such a new Charging Scheme. Axel will work with his staff on a draft charter for this task force. Further to comments made during the General Meeting, we asked Axel to ensure a better alignment between the Activity Plan and Budget structures. On the Budget, having examined our options in order to reduce the effects on the services we offer to members, we have made a reduction in costs of approximately 2%, mainly in the areas of Travel, RIPE meeting organisation and Training efficiency: especially as these were highlighted as suitable areas for economies by the membership. On the income for 2012, we are are now expecting a slight surplus because new members and holders of independent resources will remain a strong source of income. The membership also voted to have the RIPE NCC continue with development of Resource Certification (RPKI) including route object authorisations (ROAs). However the Board recognises that a number of concerns were raised about certification and will ensure that those concerns are taken into account as development goes ahead. You can find the minutes of the Executive Board teleconference at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes/draft-minutes… If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at <exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Nigel Titley Chairman, Executive Board

4 5

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:59 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees "1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE." I don't think I contradict my own point. The schema must be stable. The only change we've seen up to now is the start of the IPv6 deployment which was already reflected in 2008 version. PI is here for many years. The fact that the RIPE NCC driven by some populism and based on some lobby managed to adopt the ill-conceived changes to the Schema in 2008 doesn't mean they did good job. For example, ASns at once became "special" and bring money of course, PIs - on the terms of dictated agreements and so on. It is this change that led to "anomaly of PI's". The way they tried to patch it in Schema 2012 is rude, poorly thought-out, unfair and punish more members which don't have such anomalies than the real guilty LIRs (and not LIRs). PIs become a sin, burdened with the double payment and very much involved in the side effect of shifting up in categories badly. But - you know - As soon as the community have voted we don't have the rights to blame it for its decision. "2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents, it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and the mailings I read." The policy process, especially in the world of finances, should be clear and open in the form of membership the RIPE NCC in. "Impressions", subtle moving, personal and other hidden ways of determining the policy - is very uneasy for most members which they showed at the last general meeting. As other RIPE policies the Schema must be discussed in the mailing list together with the principles and concerns it solves. And it MUST be stable for several years while there is no changes in the horizon! It doesn't mean no rises, but the schema itself must not be changed. "3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it." No it is Dutch-based. But you know - if there are international agreements involved it is not only one-side law that counts. "But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps the new group will address this. We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the second allocation we would remain at the smallest level." I can say that you are wrong at the point. It is easy to count according the document. But may I ask question about mentioned in the Schema "services"? Do you use them? "Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the wind of change presented at the meetings." The general meeting showed that the wind of change is not in the interests of the member. We are not thoughtless sailer - we can go against wrong tendencies. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Invitation to participate in the Charging Scheme Task Force
by Nigel Titley 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

Dear all, at the RIPE NCC Board Meeting, last Thursday, we agreed to set up a small task force, to work on a successor of the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. Apart from members from the Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, we are looking for representatives from our members. We know some of you are interested in the topic, and would like to encourage you to volunteer to work on this important task. The composition of the task force will be two RIPE NCC staff members, two Board members and a maximum of four members. I have included the proposed charter of the task force, so that you know what you are getting yourselves into. You can reply either directly to me or to the list or both. If we get more than four volunteers then four will be chosen randomly. Looking forward to the results, Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ----- Introduction In the course of 2011 the RIPE NCC Management and the RIPE NCC Board have put in a lot of effort to propose a new, future proof Charging Scheme. Several proposals were announced to the members-discuss mailing list in July and after extensive discussion with a variety of opinions and new models, the Executive Board decided to propose a different model having taken feedback into account. After further extensive discussion and comments, this model was voted down by the membership at the last General Meeting. To improve the Charging Scheme process and to get broader input on a future Charging Scheme model the Executive Board has decided to create a Task Force, representing different groups within the RIPE NCC organisation. Objectives of the Task Force The Task Force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of a future Charging Scheme - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for Legacy holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the 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 have to be limited in size. The Executive Board has selected key individuals that have put themselves forward, have good understanding of the Charging Scheme and represent a variety of member groups. The group will consist of participants from 3 groups namely: - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima - RIPE NCC Executive Board – Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members (4 representatives) Timeframe Several meetings/phone conferences in Q1 2012, send draft proposal to Board ahead of the General Meeting in April 2012.

11 11

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas' Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees Disagree on many points here. You wrote: "I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO." Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions. Then: "However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent." I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services. Then: "Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more." It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law? Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [#27249] Surprise on renew fees
by network＠privatelayer.com 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Jon, We never asked to join this list anyway. Please remove us from as it is creating SPAM in our ticket system. James Prado Private Layer INC

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:41 AM To: paolo.difrancesco(a)level7.it Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based on amount of resource we are using. The 2012 had several bad and quite unfair flaws in many sides of its preparing procedure, its structure and the undercarpet considerations - that is why it didn't see support. >if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new comer who got the IP but also >the old ones who already had the IP. If everybody is holding something has same value, >why one party should be paying more while another should be paying less. It's not so easy. I think you do not understand the scheme correctly. "old" LIRs if they want to get a block would be counted in the same way as newcomers for the block, so the fairness of getting addresses is better in the scheme. On the other hand - if the minimal block in "old" times was /16 and the then-new LIR got it and it is still enough or even not used even close to fully - it's unfair to punish the LIR. Many best practices at the time was not so flexible as now - and it led to "waste" in modern point of view, but it's very difficult to change the assignments now (initial criteria is still met) - why the LIR should suffer? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

[#27119] PrivateLayer ticketsystem still on the RIPE members-discuss list ...
by Erik Bais 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

Dear members-discuss moderator / list owner / maintainer, Is it possible to simple remove everyone from Privatelayer from the list, for still having their ticketsystem on the list? And if possible, please do so. The time they had to fix this is insane and if they would actually be reading the list (or their own created tickets.), they could have fixed it months ago. Kind regards, Erik Bais -----Original Message----- From: support(a)privatelayer.com [mailto:support@privatelayer.com] Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 10:46 To: Erik Bais Subject: [#27119] Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. The ticket number assigned is: 27119. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. Best Regards, Private Layer INC Tech Support Department support(a)privatelayer.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

1. Newcomers need several special (and not so special, but more "manual") procedures for contract signing, teaching, allocating, assisting first assignments, a lot more supporting, "free entrance" to RIPE meeting ... I think it reasonably costs several cents more? 2. You are right about the membership fee, but every member was once a newcomer and since then pays every year the money, according the current charging scheme. Many of "current" LIRs have already contributed a lot to community (and RIPE NCC) not only by means of fees, but by ideas, solutions... 3. The rules of allocating "then" were different than "now". The "default" block was bigger and the procedures for the distribution of allocated space were not so strictly tough. Why we should punish the LIRs now to abide the rules and best practices? ... (it's only small number of arguments, and - yes - the matter was discussed several times already) Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Zubkov > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:50 AM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 12/13/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Margula wrote: > > W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze: > >> I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of > that kind. > >> > >> Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite > of used. > >> > >> This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes > >> new entries and gives resources for free to old members. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tonino > >> > > > > I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First > year > > we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized > "SMALL", > > altough we requested some more resources. > > > > And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? > Let's > > count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents > > (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference. > > > > And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources > > the more are they valuable, and they really are! > > > > This is absolutely correct in case of one-time payment. But membership > fee is regular and you are right - resources are valuable. And this > should be applied to all members, not to newcomers only. > > > ---- > 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.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Il 13/12/2011 19:54, Rob Golding ha scritto: >> 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's like flights - the later you leave it to travel-date the more expensive > they become. Yes. But you had to book 15 years before your date. Tonino

1 0

IDAQ joins an exclusive club
by Nigel Titley 30 Nov '11

30 Nov '11

I see that IDAQ has joined PrivateLayer in the exclusive club of those members who have subscribed their ticket robots to the RIPE member-discuss list. Welcome to the IDAQ-ticket robot, and congratulations on achieving sentience. We will look forward to your contributions to the discussion list with interest. Nigel (waiting in Moscow airport for my flight back to strike-hit Heathrow)

1 0

What to do
by Comunicaciones ACOTELSA 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Hi all. We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the only way is inform to the WHOIS contact? Thanks in advance. Saludos... =========================================== Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España =========================================== Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you.

8 8

Re: [members-discuss] What to do
by sslavov＠blizoo.bg 22 Nov '11

22 Nov '11

Contact the Persons in the WHOIS database, your UPLINK Provider AND BLOCK IP RANGE. Best regards. Stoyan > > RIPE, APNIC or any of the other RIRs only handle administrative issues > wrt the allocation and distribution of IP addresses, AS numbers etc. > They have no "power" over the network of any ISP. > > You should contact the persons in the WHOIS, and at the same time, you > should contact your upstream provider and ask them if they can see where > the DOS originates and if they can perhaps block it for you. > > Do remember that IP packets can be spoofed, the source address of the > DOS packets may say "this originated from 243.1.2.3" but perhaps it is a > completely different network that is sending you the packets - your > upstream provider might be able to pinpoint the actual source. > > Mike. > > On 22-11-11 4:41 PM, Comunicaciones ACOTELSA wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. >> >> Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the >> only >> way is inform to the WHOIS contact? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> Saludos... >> >> =========================================== >> Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio >> Comunicaciones y Seguridad >> Grupo Acotel >> e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com >> ------------------------------------------ >> Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 >> Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo >> Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo >> 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España >> =========================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados >> por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de >> tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de >> gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de >> comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. >> podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, >> cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica >> 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en >> Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. >> >> Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda >> la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al >> destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el >> destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su >> contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. >> >> Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached >> information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the >> addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the >> sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure >> you destroy it. Thank you. >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Update on police order of 8 November
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

> Please keep in mind, I'm not a laywer Likewise but it appears to be totally unnecessary action that establishes precedent for other more intrusive requests later > - These punishable facts are an immediate threat to the Dutch public order. Seems quite unlikely that there will be public disorder as a result of malware, at least to the extent freezing registry entries would prevent. > o The suspects in the US investigation will transfer the control of > the relevant registrations of a couple specific IP ranges in the > public register. > o The suspects in the US investigations will alter the > relevant registration(s) of a specific set of IP ranges in the > public register, unless specifically approved by the FBI of the > US attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Why would that matter as long as they made an evidence record of what it was at this time. There's lots of things the suspects may do during the course of an investigation, like just live their normal lives. brandon

1 0

Update on police order of 8 November
by Axel Pawlik 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Dear all, In the interest of transparency, I'd like to update you on the Dutch police order issued to the RIPE NCC on 8 November 2011 to temporarily lock a registration of four IP address blocks in the RIPE Registry until 22 March 2012. As mentioned earlier, we are working on full disclosure of the background documents. You can read a copy of the police order here: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-20… We will update you if and when any other publishable materials become available. We have received independent legal advice and are in discussion with the appropriate authorities. We intend to pursue this matter further in Dutch court to establish a precedent so that we are certain of our rights regarding such orders. The RIPE NCC is committed to acting in the best interest of its membership and we will continue to inform you and the Internet community on this matter as it progresses. I'd also like to take this opportunity to clarify that we have not withdrawn, removed or reclaimed the address blocks in question. kind regards, Axel

2 2