- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Mailing List Technical Issues
by Serge Radovcic 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, We recently discovered an issue affecting subscriptions to the <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> and <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> mailing lists. An error introduced into our automated processes was preventing subscription changes made via the LIR Portal from being reflected on these mailing lists. No other mailing lists were affected. This issue was in effect from 1 September 2015 and has now been resolved. The majority of you will not have been affected by this issue, and any changes you may have made to your subscriptions to the <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> and <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> mailing lists during this time (including subscribing, unsubscribing or changing your contact email address) have now been processed. No further action is required on your part. A record of all emails sent to these lists is available in the archives. <ncc-announce(a)ripe.net> archives are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/ <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> archives are available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/ Timely communications with our members is very important to us, and we sincerely regret this error. We have introduced measures to ensure this doesn’t happen again, and we apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. Kind regards, Serge Radovcic Chief Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
by Thomas Mangin 17 Feb '16

17 Feb '16

Dear RIPE NCC Board, Thank you for opening this discussion/consultation. > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a > problem that must be prevented? It is. The RIPE NCC policies should be written in a way which is beneficial to its community. Having a number of organisations using them to profit (financially or by gaining more IP addresses) is not in our community’s interest. However, any response to a problem should be proportional to the issue and therefore the RIPE NCC’s answer to this problem should take in consideration the number of member abusing the system and the harm being done to the community. The last /8 policy was mostly written to make sure new entrants are not priced out of market and from the data there is no evidence this is yet the case. Therefore any solution should be careful to keep this goal. 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? This is a very broad topic, and a decision by consensus without some more research and a/some paper(s) to guide the discussion seems unwise here. That said … Like others, I can see two scenarios why an organisation may register several LIR: (0) it is practical for their organisation - nothing to see (1) to secure for itself several /22 when the last /8 policy comes in play (2) to secure a number of /22 to resell … If the board is aware of other case, I would welcome some enlightemement For case (1) The RIPE NCC could restrict the number of LIR an organisation wish to have (to a suitable low but practical number) as long as this does not impact genuine use of the RIPE NCC. For case (2), The most likely impact of forbidding this practice may be to increase the price of IPv4 at sales (passing on the cost of the business creation), which would affect people needing IP space - and required to purchase some - more than the people selling it and making the profit. Price changes should only be brought forward if the RIPE NCC is sure it can price ‘bad’ business models out. As this is something we have no data to make our mind on and and which may also have other side effects - I am unsure it would be wise. Also the membership should keep in mind that any new ‘policy’ will be immediately ‘played’ by people actively trying to game the system. Therefore careful thoughts should be placed on any new rule placed which will therefore inevitably have unintended consequences. Regarding enforcing some rules for the transfer of resources, I am concerned it could place the organisation in a position where it could be on the receiving hand of legal challenges. Therefore I would favour any solution which would not require any ‘human judgement’ by the RIPE NCC at transfer time. > 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. I would hope the RIPE NCC does put forwad some proposals for vote. As the board may not be in a position to ‘guess’ the option(s) most likely to gain consensus, a number of proposals could be presented to the membership so should a proposal succeed (or fail) others can be presented to complete / replace it. (This assumes the extra new LIRs are not already in a veto position with our usual voting engagement) Also the RIPE NCC may consider to add this information to the list of RIPE NCC’s LIR as: - it would allow to spot who may oppose changes to the RIPE NCC policies due to personal gain - it would the community to use other form of self-regulation to act on this matter should the RIPE NCC fail to reach consensus. Some of the options to remove the benefit of registering several LIR are (more than one could be considered for a solution): - creating some more aggresive rules regarding the transfer of resources - not allowing resources transfer for ‘young’ LIR - changing the rules for the last /8 * having a concept of related LIR * providing some space in relation to the existing allocation (at the cost of increasing the fragmentation of the /8). - revoking the last /8 policy - treating it as normal - revoking the last /8 policy - keeping the space until more visibility on how best use it can be gathered. - .. surely some more .. Sincerely, Thomas Mangin Exa Networks Limited

10 13

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

16 Feb '16

2 1

Multiple LIR discussion and courteous behaviour
by Nigel Titley 16 Feb '16

16 Feb '16

Dear all, It has been brought to our attention that some contributors to this discussion have received abusive personal emails off the list from other RIPE NCC members. We ask that members refrain from such activity and continue the discussion on the list in a respectful manner. Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Gert Doering 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

Hi, On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 06:58:01PM +0100, Jack wrote: > On 14/02/2016 18:52, Gert Doering wrote: > > Members get a /29 IPv6 with no questions asked. > > > > This is a *lot* of addresses. > Addresses that won't allow me to reach more than 80% of the "top 1000 > sites", according to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ > I am a huge IPv6 fan, but we need to be realistics: IPv6 only business > is not possible today But there is not so much the RIPE NCC can do about it. But if *you all* go out and call the sites that are important for your customers and explain that they will have poor performance (read: CGNAT) unless they enable IPv6, that will get things moving. Stop complaining that IPv6 isn't deployed - work to *make it*. (And this, gentlemen, is exactly why we're having this discussion - because too many folks are just complaining that IPv4 is running out (surprise!), that the IPv4 market is not fair (surprise!), but not spend that amount to get IPv6 rolled out further) BTW, nobody suggested doing "IPv6 only business" - do native IPv6 to your customers, put IPv4 on your big NAT boxes, and this exactly why we reserve a /22 IPv4 for people "late in the game": so your NAT boxes *can* reach those parts of the Internet that are stuck in the last century. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Tomasz Śląski SKONET 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

W dniu 2016-02-11 o 11:56, Nigel Titley pisze: > [...] > > 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? It is obviously clear as the Sun is, that people open additional LIR accounts only to get another /22. The purposes are going mainly two ways: 1. the people need IPv4 for their own usage (hosters, cloud or vpn suppliers, ISP's - but they have more solutions) 2. for the speculative (ab)use. One of speculative abuses is following proceeding: - open the LIR, get /22, rent it for spammers (virgin addresses are expensive) after the IPs fall into the black lists, withdraw them from BGP and silently wait two years to sell the IP's - meanwhile, the addresses are purified from black lists and can be sold, and the LIR gets closed. The first of the ways I'm willing to accept - the prices on the "free market" (quotes purposeful) are much higher. The second is not fair to the other members of the RIPE NCC and should not take place - this practice is driving the black market and making speculative prices. In this case the 2-year transfer ban does not help anyway - with this type of activity it is not an obstacle. So I'm going to a conclusion, that either: a) it should not be prevented opening additional LIR, but limit "the openings" for one piece in 24(?) months. Additionally the resources received this way should be excluded from the transfer to another "foreign" LIR with significantly long time. These resources could be merged only with its own "primary" LIR after one year, but after that they can not be transferred out for at least 5 years. This should be enough to discourage speculation. or b) since the opening of the next LIR within one person or entity (organization) is creating a fiction - (see above) I postulate to go new way: one entity one LIR as principle. All additional LIRs opened by the same entity should be administratively merged info one account. Fees for this should be an annual cost of maintaining of each LIR. After that the resources should be locked for 5 years. After this cleanup let's introduce the fee for "new LIR resources" equal to the yearly cost of opening and maintenance of the new LIR and hold the lock the transfer for 5 years - this is in fact coming back to the concept of allocation a additionally /22 not often than 24 months for a fee equal to the annual cost of LIR. I think, that option b) will be more transparent. Otherwise, we risk a rash of new LIRs, who are not really "new entrants" but only a pretext to meet the needs of current users or drive the abusers. Best regards -- Tomasz Śląski

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Sander Steffann 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

Hi Nigel, > 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. The final /8 policy allows one /22 per LIR so that the RIPE NCC can at least give a small block of IPv4 addresses to each LIR (compared to no IPv4 addresses at all when the final /8 block runs out). This small block is needed so that those entities can at least run DNS, SMTP, NAT etc services on IPv4 for as long as necessary for the internet to migrate to IPv6. This is expected to take a long time, so RIPE NCC should be able to provide such blocks for a long time in the best interest of interoperability on the internet. A single member opening multiple LIRs to get multiple /22s goes against the spirit and purpose of this and if abused on a large scale will cause problems for future RIPE NCC members. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? This is more difficult. Some ideas: When an organisation is already an LIR don't allow them to open a new LIR. RIPE NCC membership already has a minimum length of one year. If I understand correctly LIRs that close in the first year still have to pay the full first year's membership fee. Maybe extend this to 2 or 3 years to make it less interesting to create disposable LIRs just to get some resources and then merge them into another LIR. Any way to prevent such disposable LIRs would be good. RIPE NCC is an association and those wanting to become members should be serious about it. Cheers, Sander

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Sebastian Wiesinger 14 Feb '16

14 Feb '16

To address Nigels questions for a change: * Nigel Titley <exec-board(a)ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem > that must be prevented? I see it that way. It is another attempt to game the run out fairly policy that is in place. > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. If a member tries to circumvent this in bad faith I would have no problem with the RIPE NCC holding the member accountable for violating the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement and proceed with the actions as stated in ripe-640 (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources). If the current SSA doesn't mandate such action I think that we should add it. Are there attemps right now to fool the RIPE NCC into opening additional accounts? 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

16 20

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
by Paul Civati 13 Feb '16

13 Feb '16

On 12 Feb 2016, at 22:54, Freethought Hostmaster wrote: > Just because someone is allocated globally unique address space, doesn't mean that it has to be announced into the DFZ. It is perfectly legitimate to use that space privately. How often does that happen? Do we need to support that when space is constrained? > Also, being allocated globally unique address space doesn't mean that you are multi-homed and thus also have an ASN. It is perfectly legitimate to have your own address space but be single-homed. Most LIR have their own ASN, but that is a valid point. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts
by Hank Nussbacher 12 Feb '16

12 Feb '16

I think members opening additional LIR accounts goes against the spirit and history of RIPE. If Level3, Google, Akamai and others open multiple LIR accounts, I will then change my opinion. I also believe RIPE should not grant multiple LIR accounts additional requests for /22s. Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC

19 26