- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] LIR???s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by support 05 Dec '18

05 Dec '18

Ist very good what you are writing there Lutz.The reality is another thing, especially about IPv6.We are using both well, but we are a company located in Kenya.Kenya dont use IPv6 which means that when we dont work with both (IPv4 and IPv6) our Sites will not be available worldwide, especially in Kenya. This dont mean right now that I support lower prices and lower transfer time.Who opens a LIR have to accept the rules, otherwise dont think even to open one!Have a nice day guys. Christian Lutzner Vhost Meremeta LTDVon meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.

3 3

Two mailing lists?
by LeBar, Russell J 05 Dec '18

05 Dec '18

Any chance we could split this list into two -- one for the business, billing, contracts, etc. side of things and another for technical side of things? -- Russ ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] LIR???s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by ivaylo 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

Hello, everybody The problems with overing IPV4 space will become more and more actual with time, and I think this come from unfair RIPE charging scheme. As far as I'am familiar Current charging allows some lirs to have huge number of unused resources and others to think how to get needed resources, and everybody pay same amount of money. Also this scheme create space for speculators to get easy money from internet companies. By me fair will be this scheme: Registration fee: no matter as RIPE decide 2k euro seems not little, but it is acceptable. Annual fee: 350 euro (or second variant 1400 euro as it is now) Every LIR (old and new) get one /24 IPV4 and one ASN for these 350 EURO (or one /22 IPV4 and 1 ASN) same as it is now, just for smaller organizations/companies which want to become LIR small fees and less resources will be provided. If a company or organization needs more IPV4 space the annual fee to be bigger, for every /24 +350 euro. If a company have more than one /19 fee to be +400 euro for every /24 after first /19 All LIR to LIR permanent resource transfer to be disabled. So if you need resources only ripe can provide them to you. I beliave this way LIRs who have a lot of blocked unused IPV4 resources will return them to RIPE and they will be available for those who need them. Also speculators will be eliminated. And not last, RIPE will collect more moneys and will do what it have to do - to control the resources. Maybe somewhere back in time something similar was discussed but can somebody explain me why it is not accepted or rejected or not liked ? Ivaylo Josifov Varteh LTD Varna, Bulgaria On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, ripe-member-discuss+lr(a)c2play.de wrote: > @Dmitry: > RIPE NCC does not earn quick money, it is a non-profit organisation and not > a self-service shop. > > @Lutz Donnerhacke: > I'm not sure what you mean, but it is allowed for a single company to create > multiple LIR accounts and so get multiple IPv4 /22 at the end of the day. > That is absolutely conform to RIPE policy. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > From: Dmitry Vorozhtsov <dvorozhtsov(a)gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, 4. Dec 2018 ? 12:09 CET +0100 > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR???s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need > support > > You are wrong. All my addresses are assigned and working. You may ask - why > do I open LIRs again and again? > > Because I need more addresses to offer to my customers. Purchasing addresses > from open market is risky. Thats why I open new LIRs. > > RIPE earns quick money in this case, not me. > > > Regards, Dmitry. > > 04.12.2018 19:41, Paolo Prandini ?????: > > I was worried so much about this discussion starting again! > > I suppose a lot of people is interested in it, as far as I can > understand > is a > > matter of quick money by buying and reselling the last IPv4 blocks, > and > RIPE is > > NOT making this easy enough for some people. Then there are legitimate > > claims, but the rules were so easy to understand, 1k IPs for new LIRs, > > that there is always someone trying to bend them to make some more money. > > Anyway it is the way it goes, the world moves where it finds the money, > > I suppose it is a corollary of finding the minimum of potential energy. > > But I am not interested in this discussion, it goes on and on and on > > since more than a year, I am unsubscribing to the list. Thanks anybody > > who contributed. > > Paolo > > > > Il 04/12/2018 11:25, ripe-member-discuss+lr(a)c2play.de ha scritto: > >> > Sebastian Wiesinger sebastian.wiesinger at noris.net [Tue Dec 4 >> > 08:53:56 CET 2018] > >> > The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also > >> > pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times. > >> > >> > Regards > >> > >> > Sebastian > >> > >> That is, in the light of the matter of this discussion, not quite >> > correct. Yes, the fees are annual - but they are charged on a pro >> rata > basis, so for example, LIRs don't pay a full annual fee of >> ?1,400 when > they become LIR in the last quarter of 2018. They only >> pay for the last > quarter of 2018. > >> > >> What the starter of the discussion criticizes is that LIRs not only >> > have to pay member fees retroactively, they also have to pay it when >> those > LIRs are not involved in the transfer at all. > >> > >> To be honest, I think that RIPE NCC is a very fair RIR, if not the >> > fairest. But I also admit that this rule is quite confusing: To >> prevent > impatient people from creating a LIR in the last quarter of a >> year, then > transfering the resource(s) and closing the LIR to make >> fast money, we > already have a rule which states that scarce resources >> cannot be > transfered within the first 24 months after the resource >> was allocated. > >> > >> There may be also other reasons for companies to create multiple LIRs >> > than making fast money. Many people do legitime business. Also in the >> > earlier days of RIPE NCC some companies had multiple LIRs. > >> > >> With that said, I don't think the way how fees are charged for such >> > transfers is consistent, it is quite confusing. On the other hand >> RIPE NCC > has a legitime interest to prevent people from making fast >> money; but here > we already have an effective rule: The 24 months >> restriction. > >> > >> So the question is: What is the reason for this rule if you think we >> > need it to be kept? > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- >> > >> *From:*Dave Benwell <dave(a)it-communicationsltd.co.uk >> > </email/new/1/dave%40it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> > >> *Sent:*Tuesday, 4. Dec 2018 ? 10:39 CET +0100 > >> *To:*Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger(a)noris.net >> > </email/new/1/sebastian.wiesinger%40noris.net>> > >> members-discuss(a)ripe.net </email/new/1/members-discuss%40ripe.net> > >> > >> *Subject:*Re: [members-discuss] LIR?s billing issues with RIPE NCC, >> > need support > >> > >> Additional accounts are normally setup to get more IP Space > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On >> > Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger > >> Sent: 04 December 2018 07:54 > >> To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] LIR?s billing issues with RIPE NCC, >> need > support > >> > >> * Juri <hostmaster(a)ntx.ru> [2018-12-04 08:09]: > >> > I suggest RIPE NCC do correct accounting for each LIR for the time >> > > this LIR instance exists. If LIR has annual billing - then RIPE NCC >> > > should use it. If LIR selected quarterly billing - RIPE NCC show >> use. > > But RIPE NCC should not overcharge LIRs for the time they >> didn't give > > any services for LIR instance. > >> > >> The RIPE NCC fees are anually. As a convenience *to you* you can also >> > pay them quarterly (we don't). This has been discussed multiple times. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Sebastian > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/dave%40it-communic > ationsltd.co.uk > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/ripe-member-discus > s%2Blr%40c2play.de > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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/prandini%40spe.net > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/dvorozhtsov%40gmail > .com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ripe-mem > ber-discuss%2Blr%40c2play.de >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] LIR’s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by ripe-member-discuss+lr＠c2play.de 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

6 5

Re: [members-discuss] LIR???s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by ripe-member-discuss+lr＠c2play.de 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] LIR???s billing issues with RIPE NCC, need support
by Lutz Donnerhacke 04 Dec '18

04 Dec '18

> Because I need more addresses to offer to my customers. Purchasing > addresses from open market is risky. Thats why I open new LIRs. You are doing it wrong. Please learn how to operate an ISP in modern times. Two hints: - https://lutz.donnerhacke.de/eng/content/search?SearchText=NAT (use deepl.com) - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6540 But please stop wasting tight resources by incompetence. And please stop stealing resources from others by tricking RIPE policies. Please note, that your message is enough to reclaim the illegal obtained resources back by RIPE NCC. That's one of the activities we pay them for.

3 2

Our AS is in a macro that we don't authorize.
by José Manuel Giner 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

Hi, we checked that our AS is present in the macro: AS24748:AS-THINX (they have thousands of AS in their macro) After contacting atman.pl who is responsible for this macro, they tell me: > It appears that AS59432 is contained in one of our customers AS-SETs and > it is automatically added to our AS-SET AS24748:AS-THINX > > As soon as they remove AS59432, it will disappear from AS24748:AS-THINX We have asked him how we can find out who that customer is. But their answer doesn't give us any information. > Please be kindly informed that our macros are being built automatically > according to our customers` macros. If your AS happens to be removed > from whichever of our customer`s macros, ours is to be changed accordingly. We are concerned about this situation and do not know how to proceed. Thank you for your help! -- José Manuel Giner http://ginernet.com

6 7

[ncc-announce] [news] Transfers Due to Change in Business Structure and Between LIR Accounts of One Member
by Фри Дата 29 Oct '18

29 Oct '18

1 0

Out of office email
by Cedric R 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Hello, When i send a message to this mailing list, i receive some Out of office from a bunch of members. Can you avoid to use out of office on mailbox used for mailing list (maybe use separate mailbox). Thanks Cédric Rossius

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by Alex Band 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Hi Dominic, > On 1 Aug 2018, at 16:43, Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi Cedric, > >> Am 01.08.2018 um 15:45 schrieb Cedric R <ml(a)servperso.com>: >> >> Hello, >> I think it's not a bad idea but the real solution remain RPKI. >> If transit operator like HE or L3 start to reject INVALID RPKI and some riskly network start to sign theyr route (and it's pretty simple with RIR tools) we can clear a part of the problem quickly. >> I don't talk about reject unsigned route, but only invalid signed. > > I absolutely agree with you. Personally I believe, for making progress with technology, we will always need some innovators and big players which are able and willing to create a certain amount of pressure on the market. If the big transit providers or networks like Google, Amazon, etc. would agree about a certain date after which they will reject all invalid RPKI, I guess we would see some spike in RPKI adoption VERY quickly. Similiar thing just happening with HTTPS/TLS and their flagging of http:// as insecure in their latest Chrome builds. Same story around three years ago with Google's call for mobile-first and responsiveness. Concerning BGP, unfortunately I do not expect the any of the big ones to take this step anywhere soon, as it would also dramatically impact their own availability and revenue. So what other options do we have then? After events like the MyEtherWallet BGP hijack, these big corporations you mention are certainly not ignoring RPKI. The feedback I’ve been getting from the industry is not so much the willingness to adopt RPKI but rather the lack of mature, well maintained and easy to use tooling to deploy and maintain it. The hosted systems that the RIRs offer are fine for basic management, but if you’re an enterprise with address space in multiple RIR regions or you are an LIR with a large amount of customers you manage routing for, clicking around in (multiple) RIR web interfaces gets old really fast. The same goes for relying party software to validate RPKI data; how many mature implementations are available? To use your own example, large scale deployment of HTTPS was only possible after Let’s Encrypt provided a practical and affordable way for everyone to have a certificate. The same can happen with RPKI... Cheers, Alex Band NLnet Labs @alexander_band https://nlnetlabs.nl > > >> Also AS blacklisting can be quickly spoofed. >> What append if someone use hijacked ASN behind it's legit ASN to announce hijacked prefix (not every filters drop that). > > To be honest, that’s an issue I haven't thought about yet but you are absolutely right. > The only feasible solution here would be strict IRRDB filtering on autnum/as-set. > > Best Regards > Dominic > > >> Best Regards >> Cedric Rossius >> >> Le 01-08-18 à 11:59, Dominic Schallert a écrit : >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> I’m sure some of you have read about this recent incident; https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 . Nowadays we’re talking about transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most fundamental parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken from a security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the current security-related struggles, their deployment currently competes somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. >>> >>> So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. >>> >>> I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes extreme problems require extrem solutions. >>> >>> Mit besten Grüßen >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> Dominic Schallert, BA >>> >>> >>> <logo_email.png> >>> >>> >>> schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria >>> >>> FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch >>> >>> Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 >>> >>> www.schallert.com | office(a)schallert.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ml%40servperso.com >> > > >

2 1