- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Александр Клименко 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

First of all, I think we all should agree that current debates are all about abusing LIR creation procedure to get extra IPs. Why some percent of members was trying to explain here their reasons why they can't use IPv6. Relatively to the main discussion in short: I believe we can do nothing to prevent different types of abusing for a 'long distance'. They've asked whether the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts is a problem that must be prevented? Sure it is, RIPE can block requests from existing LIRs, or add some extra payments for such procedure. The second option actually is nothing but a small delay to the times until the prices for IPv4 will be higher than LIR charges. As mentioned earlier, if we just block an ability to create LIR for an existing member, it's definitely not a problem to register new companies. It is not even necessary to create a new company, almost everyone can open paint application and create all needed documents. RIPE has no ability to validate somehow whether the documents are juridical correct or not, including merging/sell documents. The principles of honesty, responsibility and reasonableness are fading when money comes to play. IPv4 address space is already monetized and we can't fight with or deny this fact. Besides, I don't agree that any types of audit can help here. This procedure requires huge effort not only from RIPE employees but from LIR engineers too, in large LIRs it may be prolonged for indeterminable time. Estimating effectiveness of every particular LIR address space and attempts to retrieve some IPv4, could lead RIPE to become a regulator not a coordinator. It's a good idea to check ARIN policies applied to their last block, and may be adopt some paragraphs. Some basic principles that are emphasized: - Documentation, network schemes and so on are strongly required for any allocation. In contrast with ARIN, RIPE just give /22 to any new member. - Necessity to provide data demonstrating utilization of this space (immediately and after one year) Summarizing all above, I think RIPE should prevent any IPv4 address allocations (including new LIR members) without complete plans, schemes and demonstrations of necessity and effectiveness. May be RIPE can afford one dedicated engineer being responsible for analyze such plans. Still it must be clear that complete IPv4 exhaustion is just the question of time, no matter how hard RIPE put the screws on allocation procedure. Alex Klimenko Digital Network

1 0

parrot on the list
by Matthias Šubik 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Hello, can anybody stop support(a)polycomm.net from resending any e-Mail it receives? It is an annoying parrot. thanks Matthias

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [Polycomm] (TS-221) [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Anthony Somerset 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

to come back to the debate about multiple LIR’s and ip space, let me play devil’s advocate for a second :) why don’t we want to allow final IPv4 space to be consumed as quickly as reasonably possible reserving only some final space as required for critical infrastructure needs? (critical infrastructure might be considered as things like as internet exchange points or verified root DNS servers etc) Yes this would drive up the grey/black market prices and there will be some people that take advantage of this and find creative ways around the various soft landing policies in place globally (this problem isn’t unique to RIPE specifically) for a quick $£ etc however the flip side of this is an enforced shortage of IPv4 because of its consumption will also force people to actually act on getting onto IPv6 properly once and for all. lets not try and prolong the life of a terminally ill patient that is IPv4 - lets give it the IP/Networking equivalent of a Do Not Resuscitate and just let it run out and focus our efforts on building proper IPv6 plans and rolling them out and supporting the IPv6 transition methods like 6to4-PT or similar the increasing price of IPv4 address is really a short to medium term problem because the market would ultimately reach a limit where its much more financially viable to roll out IPv6 network upgrades and infrastructure if not existing already than to purchase grey IP's Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, w: cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net/> | e: anthony.somerset(a)cloudunboxed.net <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail. > On 17 Feb,2016, at 16:31, Jivko Jelev <support(a)polycomm.net> wrote: > > Jivko Jelev <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=j.jelev%40itnsglob…> обновил запрос > > Техническая поддержка <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS> / <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-221> TS-221 <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-221> > [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-221> > I think is more beter this market to be close no reason to sale ip > space. !!! > RIPE Must take back this free ip space and on standat procedure give > space to LIR providers whit clear rule-s .... > For exsample big providers have alot of ip space Class B networks and > they rent and sell this ip space. This bring to them a big profit. If > you are new LIR you have only one option take space from market. no any > option to take makert in country where this LIR have custumers. > We try to use ipv6 .... for exsample no skype no any web site-s in local > peering only one option is NAT for ipv4 .... > On 17-Feb-16 4:18 PM, Matthias Šubik wrote: > >> On 17.02.2016, at 14:55, David Ponzone <david.ponzone(a)ipeva.fr> wrote: > >> > > .. > >> PS: I see there are some ticketing systems registered as members of the ML. I am receiving quite some garbage when I post and it seems some people are getting the mails although they are not even members of the ML. > > I guess RIPE contact leaving the company, and e-Mail address gets assigned to the support queue. > > And the helldesk has to close the tickets, > > does not have the authority / idea to unsubscribe. > > > > Matthias > > ps: If there are company mergers behind that, it isn’t so easy to find out which address needs unsubscribing, if it isn’t mentioned in the footer. > > ---- > > 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. > – > Jivko Jelev > General Manager ITNS Global - Bulgaria > T/F +359 2 49 66 555 > US/T +1 4044001713 > M +359 88 5555122,+359 87 8553844 > e-mail: j.jelev(a)itnsglobal.eu > 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. > <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-221#add-comment> Добавить комментарий <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-221#add-comment> > > Это сообщение автоматически генерируется JIRA. (v6.4.1#64016-sha1:5d75814) > <Mail Attachment.png>

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Brandon Butterworth 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

> Finding a solution that doesn't mean a huge increase in > administrative work for the NCC or making the request procedure almost > impossible for new LIR's is not a solution. Just make the price higher than the market rate, the speculators will go elsewhere. The new LIR will have to pay market rate for any further space anyway so should plan accordingly I'd rather all this was not needed but if there is a game people will play it. Nobody should be surprised brandon

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Sylvain Vallerot 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 17/02/2016 16:15, Claudiu Foleanu wrote: > Like i said to the consultant, ripe ncc never notified an end user and told > him that the lir can take the allocated space back. Obviously a very perverse consequence of the abandon of the public ressource to this market. I do not see any other solution for you than to go into justice because of an obviously unfair behavior of your provider. Regarding the Ripe policies, maybe we should try to prevent this by having the previous user of a given range to have some precedence for buying the range, if the LIR is willing to transfer it. And price should be very low compared to the market, otherwise this is door opening to extorsion. This would prevent, if not such speculative misbehaviors, at least disastrous situations for the End Users. Another option would be to apply penalties of some kind when a LIR breaks such a contract (meaning, an IP lease contract, not related to other services). Best regards, S. Vallerot - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iF4EAREIAAYFAlbFyBcACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGergD9EwZupPTy8xmaKhUXghFDz59g YoFV7p2J6/P1Ds5i4+QA/2+txMjuNnePzyOTjw/X1soteqO75/pkaMPl5kGMC+Lw =RTwZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [Polycomm] (TS-223) Re: [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by ian smith 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Hi Sebastian, by definition, "unintended consequences" are also unforeseen consequences, so I cannot give examples for any changes that may be made. However, unintended consequences are unfortunately a very common occurrence when rules are changed. Ian > Message Title > Sebastian Wiesinger > <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=sebastian.wiesinge…> > *обновил* запрос > > Техническая поддержка <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS> / > Обращение <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-223> TS-223 > <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-223> > Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members > and Multiple <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-223> > > * Ian Smith <ian(a)lothianbroadband.com> [2016-02-18 13:07]: > > I'm concerned about the direction this discussion is taking because > > it seems to be focusing on the behaviour of a tiny minority of > > members. The majority of us would welcome the ability to obtain > > another /22 or two for legitimate purposes. > > But that is not the intention of the policy. You get one /22 so that > others can get one too. I'm sure everyone would welcome the ability to > get more IPv4 but we're all out. It's over. Move on. > > > Any changes made to combat practices of a tiny minority of members > > may have unintended consequences for many and impact on small LIR's > > like mine. > > Which unintended consequences are there? All consequences that I've > heard about are absolutely intentional. (Do not let people receive > more than one /22). > > Regards > > Sebastian > > – > noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg > Tel +49-911-9352-1335 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 > > http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company > > Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel - > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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/ > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > Добавить комментарий > <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-223#add-comment> Добавить > комментарий <http://www.crm.polycomm.net/browse/TS-223#add-comment> > > Это сообщение автоматически генерируется JIRA. > (v6.4.1#64016-sha1:5d75814) > Atlassian logo >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Gunnar Guðvarðarson 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

1. Yes 2. Make it so that any /22 allocated from "the last /8" is non-transferrible if allocated after a specific date, ever. That way, if a LIR requests a /22 the subnet is bound to that LIR, if the LIR then wants to merge with another company it must return the /22. That way any abuse becomes a very expensive thing to maintain. And of course require a working IPv6 allocation before assigning anything from IPv4. ---- 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? 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? 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… The Board asks that members discuss this issue on the Members Discuss mailing list . 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 ~ Gunnar

4 4

audit idea .... improve database quality
by Matthias Šubik 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Hello, to add to my previous idea, to add the subscribed e-Mail address to the footer, I would suggest all LIRs, which obviously don’t know they are a LIR, and how to unsubscribe to be placed on the audit short list. When I was in an RIPE audit, I was shocked about the basic level of the questions asked, but now I know why. There must be hundreds of LIRs without any(more) personnel with a RIPE course. How can this LIRs deliver up to date WHOIS information, including abuse/cert/irt contact? This is no witch hunt, I can recommend to any LIR personell to take a RIPE NCC training course. This can explain the inner working of the RIPE NCC, the voting process, the database, and exactly why we have this mailing list. Additionally I assume none of this LIRs has any IPv6 plans. They might not even know there is a need for change. As their allocation is working for them (like internal LIRs in large cooperations). all the best Matthias

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Riccardo Gori 18 Feb '16

18 Feb '16

Hi all, Ni Nigel, Sorry for the late reply I tried to post my opinion days ago but there was an issue with subcription on the list. I think 2015-01 did the most. I would tune that with audit and I would forbit transfert of never annouced address space. Short answer for busy or lazy readers ;-) Here you are my opinion: 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem that must be prevented? Yes. It has been abused in a speculative way. During late 2014 and all 2015 some legal entities used it to obtain address space from /8 and immediately sell it to market. There was a loophole in the policy. This is not more possible thanks to 2015-01 discussed and approved on address-policy-wg. There was a plenty of abusing even before september 2012. Wall of shame is there. No one is shamed though. I want you to notice that if you analyze the ripe allocation list you can find similar behavior happened even before when policies were completely different Single legal entinty with multiple LIR account requested and obtained allocation greater as /18 or /16 for each LIR account they owned. Some of the allocation are still there and it's easy to check with date allocation, some maybe were transferred and are not easy to track. 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? We should attempt prevention but it's not easy. But we can consider some options: - Stop allowing opening multiple LIR account for one legal entity. Easy but irrelevant, will reach but it's easy to cheat already said from many of us. - Add more disincentive with a 5 years holing time before for all transfer. Very difficul to reach rough consensus many LIR are holding a lot of unused address space. They will expose their castle to Ipv6 adoption rate... - Returing allocated and unused: Mostly impossible. Anyway I would like to see what would happen to stockpiled IPs if memership fee were IP/monthly based. May result in cheaper transferts, cheaper leases, more LIRs doing their work, more internet. Very interesting. - Audit We had a large surplus in 2015 instead of redestributing it (this made even higher the surplus of speculators) we can consider to use it for audit. In this case we can allow multiple LIR per legal entity beacause it would been ever easier to indentify when the behavior becomes strange. If they have customers they will have assignements, IPs will be in use, IPs will be announced, database is consistent I don't see any abuse here. It something is wrong RIPE will terminate the LIR for violations or other reason as in SSA and resources will be back to the available pool. - Forbit transfert of "never annouced" address space. Maybe difficult to reach consensum but I don't like to see in IPv4 Transfer Listin Service best offers for "never annouced address space". This is sure comes from stockpiling or quick buck speculators. I think 2015-01 did the most. I would tune that with audit and I would forbit transfert of never annouced address space. kind regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo(a)wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

About unsubscribing
by Jérôme Nicolle 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Hi folks, I'm currently going through all the recent posts on this mailing list, that have been moved to a dedicated subfolder on my mailbox thanks to sieve (RFC 5228) rules. We're having a fundamental discussion here. It's all about, as members of a NFP organisation, we're trying to set rules to behave as members of the Internet community. Asking for beeing spared of the current threads is resignating for your LIR status, and memebership frome RIPE NCC. It implies asking for the return of your numbered assignement to the available pool, too. Thanks for that. You can't seriously be an ISP and ask to avoid the current conversation. Either you relenquish every assignement,and your LIR status, or take part in the building process of the next generation of our comminuty's policies. So, once again, please relenquish your assigned IP space or take part in the current process. Or ask to be spared and GTFO. Best regards, -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14

1 0