- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

RPKI ROAs for sponsored resources got deleted?
by Dominic Schallert 02 Apr '20

02 Apr '20

Hello Community, what happened to RPKI ROAs for Sponsored Resources yesterday? All of a sudden, all ROAs for Sponsored Resources got deleted... 2020-04-01 16:16:41 system Updated ROA configuration. Additions: none. Deletions: [asn=ASxxx, prefix=x.x.x.x/22, maximumLength=22]. 2020-04-01 16:16:41 system Updated suppressed routes for ROA alerts. Additions: none. Deletions: [asn=ASxxx, prefix=x.x.x.x/22]. Not only our customers affected but also others. Thanks

6 5

Re: [members-discuss] About transfer policies
by Terrence Koeman 04 Mar '20

04 Mar '20

It seems to me they did not notice it earlier, but now they have and are seeking clarification from the issuing authority. Seems completely logical to me. Just because they did not notice it before doesn't mean that they are now forced to continue exactly as before... "doesn't have" on an extract may concern authority to represent a business or something important like that. I don't see what policy is contradicted here? Can you suggest one? -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Dmitry P <head(a)global-data-networks.com> Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 03:13 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] About transfer policies > Hello, > > we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP range and RIPE > doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is suspended > for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would like to hear > other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking some > answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts. > > Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of Justice and > have a specific line near the director field which says '(не має)' right > after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't have)" from > Ukrainian. > ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має); > > We had this line on all our extracts since the company was opened and > RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those extracts b) > approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts since 2016 > c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using the extract > with the same line. > > 4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep. has asked > us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We have no > clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was present > since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned it before, > and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with that line. > > We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep. decided to > suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry of > Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of view. > She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of Ukrainian > companies every day, it's first time that we see such a record. It's not > entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do not have".", > to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE certainly HAS > SEEN this line before, at least because my company have performed many > transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved using same > extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in the name > of RIPE, which already was not very professional. > > So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness in > Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no answer at all. > Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some subject? > Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the min. justice > site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director name - > this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies, which, we > believe should have made this transfer complete already. > > Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any answer to our > questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should concern > this specific transfer, since there were already approved transfers > using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until the Min. > of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very > disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case affects our > transfer at all. > > This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but hearing other > members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like RIPE is > very contradictory to its own policies in this case? > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/terrence%40darkness-…

3 4

About transfer policies
by Dmitry P 03 Mar '20

03 Mar '20

Hello, we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP range and RIPE doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is suspended for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would like to hear other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking some answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts. Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of Justice and have a specific line near the director field which says '(не має)' right after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't have)" from Ukrainian. ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має); We had this line on all our extracts since the company was opened and RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those extracts b) approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts since 2016 c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using the extract with the same line. 4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep. has asked us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We have no clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was present since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned it before, and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with that line. We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep. decided to suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry of Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of view. She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of Ukrainian companies every day, it's first time that we see such a record. It's not entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do not have".", to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE certainly HAS SEEN this line before, at least because my company have performed many transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved using same extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in the name of RIPE, which already was not very professional. So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness in Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no answer at all. Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some subject? Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the min. justice site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director name - this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies, which, we believe should have made this transfer complete already. Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any answer to our questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should concern this specific transfer, since there were already approved transfers using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until the Min. of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case affects our transfer at all. This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but hearing other members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like RIPE is very contradictory to its own policies in this case?

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Skyline Telecom 01 Mar '20

01 Mar '20

Dominic, I think the reason is that at the GM RIPE misleadingly said that even if we redistribute only “50%” of the surplus, the amount will be the same as last year. Which clearly it isn’t. Unfortunately many based their votes on what the people at RIPE SAID and they didn’t do the math themselves, otherwise they would have seen that there is a significant difference in amounts. And now RIPE is covered, they will say “you voted, case closed” even though they gave very misleading information. So, that’s why the surplus is so much smaller compared to 2019, and that’s the reason RIPE NCC will also pay taxes to NL authorities, etc etc. Basically, they didn’t want to give money to it’s members, they preferred to give money to the dutch fiscal authority. From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Dominic Schallert Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 20:38 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question I can‘t understand why the surplus redistribution in 2019 had been EUR 567,52 and in 2020 it’s only EUR 353,82 per LIR. This does not match with the actual new-LIR development figures in 2019 according to https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs Regards Am 26.02.2020 um 15:26 schrieb Radu-Adrian Feurdean <ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net<mailto:ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net>>: On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 21:41, Arash Naderpour wrote: It doesn't looks fair to me, but you need to see enough support from the memebers to change it, NCC also like easy money, same as many of others. ...and as most of its members who do enjoy the redistribution (when there is one) the next year. Back to the initial question, the membership fee *IS* pro-rated when you *open* the LIR, sometimes to the advantage of the new member (not including an extra quarter for up to 2 or 3 weeks only). If you perform a merger via "M&A Process", the rules are pretty clear that both LIRs involved need to be with membership fees paid. Even if you would manage to propose a resolution to change this, I'm not sure it will pass. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ds%40schallert.com

5 7

Membership Fee Question
by Ali Vargonen 28 Feb '20

28 Feb '20

Hello, I would like to ask you about the membership fee costs of RIPE, today I learned something new. Maybe it was something common and I was not aware of it. As a member, you need to pay the full amount for the annual year 2020, if you just use the services for 10 days and terminate your membership with Ripe, so if you use services for 10 or 365 days you will be charged the same amount. I asked if it is possible to make it at least Q based, but this is not an option, 6 months based, not an option. You need to pay full year and it is not based on the number of days or (Q based) you are a member of RIPE in the year. Interesting information for me, I do not think its fair, but everybody could think differently. I would like to get your opinions about it. Is it fair to charge a member, who will not be a member in Q2 + Q3 + Q4 for the annual year? Kind Regards, A.V.

16 23

All RIPE NCC Invoices Now Issued
by Simon-Jan Haytink 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Dear all, Due to some administrative changes, we staggered the issuing of invoices this year while still committing to sending them all in February. All invoices have now been sent and are also accessible from the LIR Portal. Apologies for any uncertainty that might have been caused. And if you have any questions, please let us know at <billing(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Simon Jan Haytink Finance Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Together pal 26 Feb '20

26 Feb '20

Not for me [image: image.png] On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:11 PM Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> wrote: > > > Yes, definitely there > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Together pal <info(a)together-pal.com> > *Sent:* 26 February 2020 20:00 > *To:* Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> > *Cc:* Bora Ismen <bora.ismen(a)nimbevo.com>; Dominic Schallert < > ds(a)schallert.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > They are not available for me, could you double check your account, I > also contacted RIPE two days ago but still waiting for them to answer. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:57 PM Mike Simkins <mike.simkins(a)sungardas.com> > wrote: > > *They are available in the member (LIR) portal* > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Bora > Ismen > *Sent:* 26 February 2020 19:07 > *To:* 'Together pal' <info(a)together-pal.com>; 'Dominic Schallert' < > ds(a)schallert.com> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > Not yet, there is 2 more business days in February, and we have not > received any invoices yet. > > > > *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Together > pal > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 6:41 PM > *To:* Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question > > > > Did anyone got the invoice for 2020 fees?? > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:39 PM Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> > wrote: > > I can‘t understand why the surplus redistribution in 2019 had been EUR > 567,52 and in 2020 it’s only EUR 353,82 per LIR. This does not match with > the actual new-LIR development figures in 2019 according to > https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__labs.ripe.net_statisti…> > > > > Regards > > > > > > Am 26.02.2020 um 15:26 schrieb Radu-Adrian Feurdean < > ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net>: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 21:41, Arash Naderpour wrote: > > It doesn't looks fair to me, but you need to see enough support from > > the memebers to change it, NCC also like easy money, same as many of > > others. > > > > ...and as most of its members who do enjoy the redistribution (when there > is one) the next year. > > > > Back to the initial question, the membership fee *IS* pro-rated when you > *open* the LIR, sometimes to the advantage of the new member (not including > an extra quarter for up to 2 or 3 weeks only). > > > > If you perform a merger via "M&A Process", the rules are pretty clear that > both LIRs involved need to be with membership fees paid. Even if you would > manage to propose a resolution to change this, I'm not sure it will pass. > > > > -- > > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ds%40schallert.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40together-pal.… > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman…> > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 25 Feb '20

25 Feb '20

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Membership Fee Question
by Schnabeltier 24 Feb '20

24 Feb '20

1 0