- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

listed in UCEProtect level 3 blacklist
by Saeed Osali 04 Apr '16

04 Apr '16

Dear All friends, We've faced a problem recently regarding getting listed our ASN in UCEProtect Level-3 which means that about 0.2% of our IP Addresses are listed in UCEprotect-L1 level and are recognized as abusive spammers. As I checked delisting solution on the UCEProtect website, we have to pay 500 Euros roughly to get rid of this problem or wait for a week provided that none of our IPs get connected to their spam-trappers during this week. To make matters worse, yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft are using this blacklist service on their mail servers. What is your other solution for preventing IP black listing? Have you ever faced to the same problem with this company? Pay or not? Any help in this regard is appreciated. BR,

6 5

About "ownership"
by Jérôme Nicolle 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Hi, The current debates made me wonder : how come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ? It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members. I'm wondering how come we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer". May you please enlight me ? Thanks ! -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14

5 4

Please disable distribution to subscribed MLs
by Jérôme Nicolle 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

Hi, Fore every mail posted to members-discuss, I get 3 error messages from 3rd party mailling-list servers, namely : sympa(a)chd.sx do-not-reply(a)tickets.denit.net sympa(a)list2.orange.com Could moderators suspend distribution to addresses within these domains until they clean-up their subscriptions ? Best regards, -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Jérôme Nicolle 21 Feb '16

21 Feb '16

Hello Claudiu, Le 18/02/2016 21:23, Claudiu Foleanu a écrit : > Everyone will do the math before opening a new lir. So the problem will go away! I can't agree because as explained with the taxi licence analogy, I think we've shot ourselves in the foot by letting a market establish itself in the past years - as taxi licence holders did. It can only lead to ressource pooling and lending by people who will dedicate themselves to preserving assets rather than improving the network (IPv6). We need to think ahead of market tendencies, because restricting the flow of ressources will raise subnet's imaginary value, draining more cash (and power) to the bad guys… Unless RIPE NCC is allowed to enforce strict and regular audits over ressource usage, recover / force transfer of leased ressources and actively fight squatting. Making RPKI (progressively) mandatory for every new - non-transferable - allocations, doing a large-scale sanity check of every past assignements, and refusing IPv4 allocations while no IPv6 is deployed by the solicitator (I mean used, not just announced), will be a good start. RIPE would then be in a position to enforce Best Practices adoption, which would further help the community to run a more stable inter-network. I know how hard could such a policy shift be to accept, but I see it as the only solution to keep the Internet open in the not-so-distant future. ALAS, the legal challenges here are crucial, because RIPE need to take a strong position against the faulty logic leading to accountants and judges value something that is no more than a common agreement over sharing a virtual numeral space. It's even harder with the advent of virtual currencies, where this community's agreement gives value to numbers, where *ours does not*, never did - appart from the mere tolerance of a transfer platform where agreed value is secundary - and never should. Best regards, -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14

1 0

Is mailing list become too small for RIPE?
by Lu Heng 21 Feb '16

21 Feb '16

Hi Guys: With overwhelming mail traffic for past few days, I just realise one thing that I'd like to share with fellow colleagues. Now we have 13,000 members, and keep growing at 2000 member a year, with all those amount of active discussion, maybe maillng is not such a good idea for such big group, maybe Forum(like this one for example http://community.mybb.com/) will do much better in:1. put QnA for new comers, 2. organise discussion better and more readable way.3. let everyone dealing with it while they have time, as i believe Email mostly are more time critical things(at least for me personally, I know I can unscripbe but I do want to follow the discussion but don't want to receive 1000 mail traffic a day from a single list.) Let me know what everybody thinks. -- -- Kind regards. Lu

8 13

Re: [members-discuss] < new LIRs by country > [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Matthias Šubik 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

> On 19.02.2016, at 14:19, Claudiu Foleanu <claudiu.foleanu(a)tennet.ro> wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > No, i`m not interested in blaming a country. I already did my research and combined with some other info from this topic you will quickly find that > the low cost of 100 eur for a company in the Uk has already been used. Since 2015 january there is a number of 400 new lir`s added from Uk. > I can provide a list of new equipments (cheap) that are not ipv6 ready. The latest available on the market are Netis routers and equipments witch some of then are not ipv6 ready. And we cannot force the clients to upgrade routers,computers,softwares,phones,sip`s and so on.. > > And btw i don`t think UK is now in a new internet buble or hosting buble or whatever requires ipv4 buble This is an interesting approach: looking on the legal side, separating by country is of course valid. In my first assumption I naïvely thought just look at the plain numbers. But you mention the equipment side: The customer will have to upgrade the router sooner or later, but the regulation should make it about the same time for all of us. so there is not too much negative influence on the market. If some can buy IPs, other can’t, there is a better start with an offset of currency and age of LIR. Therefor we need to tell everybody, that new devices get new, read IPv6-enabled, connections. We can deal with RFC 6598 (CGNAT) for a while, but customer should prefer v6 ready equipment, and we should not wait to actively deliver v6 connectivity. *question to all readers* There are a lot of CGNATed networks, especially with mobile broadband. Hands up who has a public IP on the smart phone, and didn’t ask for it. *thank you* Ask the other LIRs what they see … I can only speak for the market I’m in, and in Austria residential internet products get converted to to CGNAT right now. And the network I’m writing this e-mail from is inside a /13 route (!), but I share this outbound IPv4 with others, and have working v6 connectivity on my desktop. And I’m obviously not in the AS I’m responsible for, as I stated earlier, we are one of the smaller LIRs. We did start with v6, the end was visible when we started buying our equipment. Matthias

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Philippe Bonvin 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

Dear all, Thanks to the RIPE for asking this question. Yes I think that multiple LIR accounts are a problem. I don’t see any valid reason to this. The role of the RIPE is to ensure an equal distribution of resources and having multiple LIR accounts doesn’t serve this cause. Selling IP addresses should not exist, in fact the name and address of the RIPE is in every whois queries in their address space ! The address space should be treated as a finite resource that nobody own, we merely have the authorization to use a part of it. If one company merge or split to another, they can ask the RIPE to change the ownership of the resources. Also, if one company want to separate their business activities, they can do it with multiple ASN. There is no technical reason to allow multiple LIR per legal entity. I understand that it is easy to create new companies but in my opinion there should be more restrictions than that : 1. To open a new LIR account, the applicant must follow a welcome course given by the RIPE explaining the good practice. (This would be covered by the opening fees). 2. The new LIR should justify their needs : a. Why they need an ASN and the routing policies (like enforced today) b. How they plan to use their address space (IPv4 and IPv6) 3. Then, the RIPE would assign an ASN and a IPv6 space corresponding the needs plus a margin 4. If the LIR wants to have a /22, then they should prove that the IPv6 space is effectively in use (for example a web server or an smtp server) and that their ASN are multi homed. 5. The /22 should not be transferable at all and should be announced by an ASN of the LIR. 6. The contact person and email address cannot be the same for 2 LIR. With these rules, it should be more difficult but not impossible to open a LIR for having more IPv4 addresses. It seems to me that the RIPE has in the past had a similar workload. Then, the RIPE should bill the LIR for the IP space they have, like it was before. The big LIR contribute financially more than the smaller ones, in the same idea that a big company pays more taxes than a smaller one. The RIPE can concede a reduced IP space fee if the LIR can demonstrate an IPv6 address space effectively in use. This check should be done once a year before the billing. That should help older LIR with only IPv4 to have an IPv6 space announced and to encourage the return of unused IPv4. Best regards Philippe >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The RIPE NCC Executive Board would like to ask the membership to >> discuss >> the issue of RIPE NCC members opening additional LIR accounts. >> >> There were comments at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) in November >> 2015 that members having the ability to open additional LIR >> accounts, >> each of which can request a /22 of IPv4 address space, may run >> against >> the spirit of the last /8 policy. In light of this, the Board >> decided to >> temporarily suspend the ability of RIPE NCC members to open >> additional >> LIR accounts. >> >> The RIPE NCC began to allocate IPv4 address space from the last /8 >> policy on 14 September 2012. Since that time the RIPE NCC has >> allocated >> more than 8,600 /22s, yet there remains 0.94 of a /8 still in the >> pool. >> >> ACTION REQUIRED: >> The Board asks the membership to provide their opinion on and >> discuss >> the following points: >> >> 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a >> problem >> that must be prevented? > Yes, should be prevented. > >> 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action >> should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? > Stop allowing opening multiple LIR account for one legal entity. > >> Statistics pertinent to this discussion are available in this >> article on >> RIPE Labs: >> > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/laura_cobley/ripe-ncc-members-and-multiple-li… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/laura_cobley/ripe-ncc-members-and-multiple-li…> >> >> The Board asks that members discuss this issue on the Members >> Discuss >> mailing list <members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>>. >> >> The Board will monitor the discussion and will review it at the next >> Executive Board Meeting on 31 March 2016. Depending on the outcome >> of >> that meeting, the Board may propose a resolution for members to vote >> on >> at the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2016. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Nigel Titley >> RIPE NCC Executive Board > > 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/> > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC, Members and Multiple LIRs
by Sylvain Vallerot 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

TL,DR: LIR account control is not related to the last /8 policy which is about allow End Users to get minimal ressources, debate should occur about a policy about the last *assignment* to the new EndUser. Dear all, I'ts been a long time yesterday to read all theses threads about wether or not to continue to allow members to open new LIR accounts. Let 'A' be "wether or not to allow members to open new LIR accounts". We've seen quite quickly that this proposition would be a very poor attemps to avaoid some members to get another /22, disregarding the last /8 policy, since this can be easily achieved another way (creating another company by example). Workarounds exist, some of them quite respectful of the letter of the policy, some but simply cheating and/or providing false information to the Ripe. Facing the poor impact such a measure would have on the real problem that we are strugling with, debates went naturally quite further to try to take other aspects into consideration and try to get a more effective solution thant just A. This has no end, we can't get to a conclusion trying to match A with the last /8 policy because the are not related. Many people here recalled that the last /8 policy spirit (if not the letter) is to allow newcomers to born and get the minimal IPv4 ressource to be able to jumpstart. This is what it is all about. But those newcomers do not have to be LIRs. Thinking that they should is wrong in two ways : forgetting that most companies needing to born outside there are actually EndUsers (yes, our clients quite often), and taking it for granted that a LIR has an ASN, a network, is an IP operateur itself or even an ISP, which is just wrong. But a LIR is *just* an IP distributor benefiting from a special relationship with the Ripe to *serve* its EndUsers. So having a policy like the last /8 read from an ASN or ISP perspective instead of from the EndUser's is quite an abuse of our LIR personality. Now, A is just void, never mind. It has been the occasion for many to contribute and have an oversight of some mechanisms for controlling the distribution of the last /8, and/or ways to cheat. We can use these to think about realistic measures to achieve the real goal. And the real problematic from last /8 policy could be stated like : « how to state distribution rules for the LIRs in order to have them to distribute one and only one /2x per EndUser, and enforce them » /2x to be defined later. Such a statement would help us to have a discussion that has a chance to come to something constructive. This also means a change of paradigms that will quite help : 1. hey LIRs, last IPv4s are not for you. 2. EndUsers back to the center of the Ripe's preocupations 3. limiting a LIR to one or several accounts is void, limiting them to a /22 is void also 4. back to serious and responsible relations between EndUsers and LIRs : EndUsers identities and relations should be seriously documented 5. LIRs back to their distribution role (not consumers), with a clear responsibility about making serious assignments and respect the policy limit per EndUser 6. allocations unlocked but LIR abuse will not be tolerated So, back to a normal working for LIRs that commit to achieve their real function and assume responbility for that. LIRs that mess up their LIR function and their IP operator have already received their last /22. They now for long that IPv4 is not available, and they must move to ipv6 or get IP on the market. LIRs that understand and commit to make a proper distribution to the new EndUsers coming should be able to fullfill their role, under control, but without irrelevant restrictions. Please comment. Best regards, Sylvain -- http://www.opdop.fr - mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68

2 2

Re: [members-discuss] < new LIRs by country > [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Matthias Šubik 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

> On 19.02.2016, at 10:37, Claudiu Foleanu <claudiu.foleanu(a)thorpanel.com> wrote: > ... > I wonder if ripe does not have a report on creation of new lir`s who requested a /22 by country. I think this report will be useful. This would overestimate the role of a country, and ignore the fact that countries differ by size, and differ by LIR per inhabitant already with a heavy contrast. You could say “damn germans / spaniards / whatever”, but is is totally ignoring the size difference. If you would really want that info, just count it, the LIR code is country code based, and the LIR table is downloadable. We had another question on this list “what happens if we need more IPv4 addresses” because of growth. So to realize the size difference, we might need to calculate the growth in internet adoption in the different countries as well. I did not buy no (important) IPv6 incapable equipment for around eight years now. So I doubt there is legitimate growth in v4, except to reuse old equipment (which is just a delay of an investment). And yes, end user prices for v4 might rise as well, this can’t be prevented from now on, maybe just delayed. Matthias

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Is mailing list become too small for RIPE?
by Lu Heng 19 Feb '16

19 Feb '16

Hi Mathias: Seems few people likes the idea, and consider the outbreak happened few days ago with massive unscripble request, it is obivious that most new member don't even know they ware automatically scribe to this list. NCC please provide an feed-back on the suggestion and maybe, board should discuss it the issue(or it is more of operational matter?) On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Matthias Šubik <matthias.subik(a)ucnd.at> wrote: > >> On 19.02.2016, at 13:35, Lu Heng <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Matthias: >> >> A forum supports Email notification and replies(in which most open >> software nowadays do that), if you dislike forum, you can still follow >> the threads interests you the maillisng list way. > > QED … but we can leave it like that, > we agree to disagree. That’s fine for me. >> >> And for member like me like more passive experience of engagement, >> probably forum the way it is, will do better. > > I agree, but for the point, this doesn’t serve the purpose the list was created for. This is a new idea. > > This e-Mail is not copied to the list, as it probably is a notion of personal preference. Nobody cared enough to reply on the question “why do we have this *list* anyway” … > > take care > Matthias > -- -- Kind regards. Lu

2 1