- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

At 22:47 28/03/2015 +0000, Jamie Stallwood wrote: >Here's a crazy thought. Instead of trying to raise charges the members >aren't keen to accept, why not offer a one-off account credit for returned >resources? It might be a nominal amount such as EUR 10, but even a small >carrot is better than a stick that you cannot use. Or how about requesting the return of unused ASNs and in exchange issue a 1M credit on RIPE ATLAS? -Hank

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Sander Steffann 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Hi Nigel, > There has been discussion on charging for AS Numbers. The board believes > that this discussion was not conclusive and there was not sufficient > consensus to change the model that was approved by the membership in 2012. > The board also believes that it should not influence addressing policy > through the charging scheme, although the model can be adjusted in the > future to take into account policies that have been agreed by the RIPE > community. I strongly disagree with the board here. There is already a policy that has consensus from the RIPE community that asks for this. Saying that the board will take into account future policies from the RIPE community but not one that already exists is just wrong. The RIPE NCC should implement *all* RIPE policies, not only those it chooses to implement. That way the board is actually influencing address policy through the charging scheme by adopting a charging scheme that is in conflict with RIPE address policy. The RIPE NCC and its members have deviated from RIPE policy in 2012, and this should be rectified as soon as possible. Cheers, Sander

17 47

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Jamie Stallwood 29 Mar '15

29 Mar '15

Here's a crazy thought. Instead of trying to raise charges the members aren't keen to accept, why not offer a one-off account credit for returned resources? It might be a nominal amount such as EUR 10, but even a small carrot is better than a stick that you cannot use. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited M: 07795 840385 Sent from mobile secured by Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Titley [nigel(a)titley.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 10:37 PM GMT Standard Time To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 On 28/03/15 22:25, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:11:35AM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> NCC gives us an estimate of any costs directly associated with >> ASN billing, risk assessment if any, and we vote on whether or >> not we want the NCC to pursue another option in the future that >> is ASN billing related. Yes? > > There is nothing to stop the board from proposing a CS option > with an ASN charge >0 now. Do I understand you correctly in that this > vote should determine > whether the NCC will *always* have to present a CS option with > ASN charge >0 or just for the next CS proposal? I think it is unwise to bind the NCC/Board for all time (and I don't actually think this is possible anyway). Nigel ---- 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.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Sascha Luck [ml] 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:55:45PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 03:46:26PM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: >> In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. >> They are listening to try and determine what's the way >> forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them >> like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same >> exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to >> do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the >> community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the >> board has never ignored.� > >This is exactly the problem: the change in 2012 was based solely >on what a (small, but loud) part of the *membership* wanted, and >it was changing policy-relevant parts of the AGM without >involving the AP *community* on this. Whether it was a small and/or loud part of the membership, it was voted on and received a sufficient majority. The idea that the AP community (which is, in theory, every Tom, Dick & Harry on the Internet) can somehow determine how much members are charged is, frankly, preposterous. The charges are a matter between the membership and the NCC board and any policy that relies on the charging scheme to work is fatally compromised. For fairness' sake, it has happened the other way around as well. In the RPKI disaster the membership has ruled into a matter of policy. That is just as wrong and we should take care to avoid these conflicts in the future (both membership and community). rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

> From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Agree. We're focusing too much on the money side here. I think the > objections to the charging scheme have nothing to do with money. It is > all about having some downside to keeping unused resources, and the > default way we got to think about that is to charge money for it. People will not agree to a large enough fee to make that work, and if the resource is scarce more so, people have seen the v4 market looming Take PI charging as an example, the money is trivial, the real cost was in the enforced paper trail that consumed way more resources to sort out. I don't know the stats (happy to be shown otherwise) on how many were recovered at the cost of messing how many legit owners around, I suspect very few Time wasted fiddling with legacy v4 better spent rolling out v6. > The address policy WG wants to make policies easy and simple, but > if they become too easy then abuse and negligence is feared so we > try to put a limit on that. The current trends is to do this by > making the NCC charge the holders It used to be you had to show a new AS advertised by two upstreams or you lost it, enough messing to discourage casual abuse brandon

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Gert Doering 26 Jan '15

26 Jan '15

Hi, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > One way I believe this could be accomplished is that if you already > pay the NCC membership fee or a PI fee, then you automatically get a > reasonable quota of gratis ASNs. (Not automatic assignment of those > ASNs, but that you won't get a separate charge until you have requested > enough ASNs to exceed your quota.) This would work for me. Agreeing with Tore that this is not supposed to bring in additional revenue, and also not supposed to punish/hurt LIRs that make good use of their ASNs - but to be an incentive to return (or trade away) unused ASNs to make them used again, and to prevent useless hoarding which would burn NCC resources. Gert Doering -- RIPE member, and interested in good resource management -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 7

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Nigel Titley 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board has closely followed the ASN discussion on the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The issue of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme has been raised, so I'd like to give you an idea of the Board's thinking on this. We hope this will inform the discussion and also give sufficient time for members to give their feedback, which we will take into account when making a Charging Scheme 2016 proposal to present to the General Meeting (GM) in May this year. The issue of reintroducing a charge for ASNs was raised at the last GM in November 2014. You can follow the details of that discussion in the GM minutes: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/minutes-ripe-ncc-gen… This discussion, interesting though it was, did not result in a conclusive outcome on how the membership would like the Board to proceed with regard to ASNs. It also raised the issue of charging for PI address space. Another issue raised at the previous GM during the discussion on providing RIPE NCC services for Legacy Internet resource holders was that members can vote only to approve or reject the Charging Scheme as a whole and they cannot vote on individual aspects of the Charging Scheme. In trying to address the Charging Scheme-related issues raised, the Board would like to make two statements: Firstly, the Board would like to retain the current "one LIR, one fee" Charging Scheme model that was approved by the membership and which provides fairness, predictability and simplicity for RIPE NCC members. Secondly, the Board strongly believes that the Charging Scheme should be aligned with RIPE Policy. For this reason, there is a separate charge for PI resources that ensures alignment with ripe-452, "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region (2007-01)". With this in mind, the Board would like to offer two different proposals for the Charging Scheme 2016: 1. The Board can propose a Charging Scheme in advance of the May GM and have the membership discuss the proposal. The Board would take the discussion into account before proposing a final Charging Scheme to be voted on by the membership in May. or 2. The Board could take a two-step approach to the Charging Scheme. In May, members would vote on individual issues such as charging for ASNs. The result of the voting would then be used to create a Charging Scheme that would be voted on in the usual way by members at the November GM. The RIPE NCC Executive Board is appointed to represent the interests of the membership. For this reason, we encourage you to give us your feedback on these proposals so that the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 can come as close as possible to reflecting the wishes of the membership. You can discuss the proposal and related Charging Scheme issues on the Members Discuss mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>) or you can contact the Board directly at exec-board(a)ripe.net <mailto:exec-board@ripe.net>. The next Executive Board meeting takes place on 19 March, so we would appreciate your feedback before that date. I will also copy this mail to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list to ensure all interested parties are aware of the Board's thinking. Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Paul Civati 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

(cc members-discuss) Mihnea-Costin Grigore <mgrigore(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as > of 5 February 2015. We believe this change will provide a more secure, > efficient website for our users. > > The www.ripe.net website has been available over HTTPS for some time > already, and we are now making it HTTPS-only for two reasons: to improve > the website's security, and because we plan to integrate RIPE NCC Access > (our single sign-on system) with www.ripe.net as part of our larger > website redesign project, which requires us to use HTTPS throughout the > site. Some observations spring to mind. 1. www.ripe.net is (as far as I can see - and I could be wrong - please correct me) primarily an information site, that is it provides publically available information to everyone/anyone. Therefore it does not largely transmit anything that needs to be secure and encrypted over SSL. 2. There have been far more security holes in https/TLS/SSL of recent than plain HTTP as far as I can tell. Therefore I would say that https is less secure unless you have sensitive information to transport. If my assertion (1) is correct then it would not seem beneficial to SSL proect www.ripe.net - indeed it may make it less secure. 3. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that SSO is a good plan, in this case separation of the two different entities (information ie. www.ripe.net and admin ie. LIR portal) seems like a good idea. Of course (3) may break the desire for SSO. Or this may not really matter and no-one may really care. :) Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

7 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Jan '15

22 Jan '15

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Mihnea-Costin Grigore wrote: >We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as I like the idea, everyone should do it. Would the NCC consider publishing a report on any unreachability issues encountered, once it's been https-only for a bit? This would be useful info for anyone else considering this move. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Hi When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. -- Shahin Gharghi

6 6