- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

New request created with ID: ##7884## from Dominik Nowacki
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

New request created with ID: ##7883## from Nick Hilliard
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

New request created with ID: ##7882## from Dominik Bay
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

New request created with ID: ##7881## from Sander Steffann
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

New request created with ID: ##7880## from Elvis Daniel Velea
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

New request created with ID: ##7879## from Sander Steffann
by Service desk 26 May '16

26 May '16

1 0

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